Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.C.Bhargava
SHIV PRASAD
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 04 November 1996
Writ Petition No. 6753 of 1996
Suspension Order - Challenge to Suspension Order - The court quashed the suspension order dated 15. 10. 96 as it did not indicate any pending inquiry or appointment of an Inquiry Officer, rendering the order illegal and unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 15. 10. 96, arguing that it did not indicate any pending inquiry or appointment of an Inquiry Officer, making the order illegal and unsustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order did not indicate any pending inquiry or appointment of an Inquiry Officer, rendering the order illegal and unsustainable. The court allowed the petition and quashed the suspension order, while leaving the option open for the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the law.
Issues: Challenge to Suspension Order
Ratio Decidendi: The suspension order must indicate any pending inquiry or appointment of an Inquiry Officer to be legal and sustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the suspension order, and left the option open for the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the law.
By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 15. 10. 96.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing coun sel, who, agree that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in suspension order, dated 15. 10. 96 relating to the petitioner it has not been indicated that any enquiry is pending or is under contemplation against the petitioner and he is being suspended in respect thereof. He has further argued that no Inquiry Officer has been appointed by virtue of this order hence this order is illegal and cannot sustain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Suren-drapal Malik v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Meerut, 1996 (2) LBESR 265, which also ap plied to the facts of the present case.
5. In view of the legal position the order of suspension cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. The writ petition is therefore, al lowed and the order of suspension dated 15. 10. 96 is quashed. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
