Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1519
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.S.Chauhan, D.P.Gupta
R K VERMA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 22 July 2003
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29573 of 2003
A.K.Srivastava, ANUPAM KUMAR, R.N.TRIPATHI, T.P.SINGH,
The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground. Warning is not a punishment provided under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The serious charges in the charge-sheet relating to the earlier period of service were not taken into consideration while passing the suspension order.
Headnote:
Suspension - Service Matter - U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 3, Rule 4 - Scope of interference by the Court in suspension matters - Double jeopardy - Doctrine of double jeopardy - Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of Superior Authority are there - The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground - The Court may interfere if it is not such a case which may justify the Authority to keep the employee under suspension for a prolonged period - The case of the petitioner requires to be considered in view of the settled legal propositions of law - Warning is not a punishment provided under the said Rules - The charge-sheet served upon the petitioner containing serious allegations of acceptance of illegal gratification and forging the documents relate to his earlier period of service at Allahabad and have not been taken into consideration while passing the suspension order - The petitioner ought to have approached the disciplinary/competent authority before filing the writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly, filed a writ petition to quash the suspension order passed against him for remaining absent from duty. The petitioner had been served a charge-sheet for various allegations, including absence from duty without leave and other serious charges during his earlier posting in Allahabad.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the scope of interference in suspension matters, the doctrine of double jeopardy, and the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It found that warning is not a punishment provided under the Rules and that the serious charges in the charge-sheet relating to the earlier period of service were not taken into consideration while passing the suspension order. The Court directed the petitioner to file a proper representation before the competent authority to address his grievances and issues related to the alleged misconduct.
Issues: Scope of interference by the Court in suspension matters, application of the doctrine of double jeopardy, consideration of warning as a punishment, and the relevance of serious charges in the charge-sheet to the suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground. Warning is not a punishment provided under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The serious charges in the charge-sheet relating to the earlier period of service were not taken into consideration while passing the suspension order.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to file a proper representation before the competent authority to address his grievances and issues related to the alleged misconduct.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 5-7-2003, passed by respondent No. 1.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner has been working as Chief Engineer, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. He proceeded on leave, duly sanctioned, from 11 to 17 June, 2003 but came back on 25 June, 2003. For remaining absent from duty for a week, the impugned suspension order has been passed. Hence this petition.
3. Shri T. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even the charge of absence from duty for a week would not make him liable for a major punishment, therefore, the impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed.
4. On the contrary, Shri R. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 have submitted that petitioner has also been served a charge-sheet for forging signature of another officer and for receiving the illegal gratification from a contractor for removing the remarks made by another officer. Through all those allegations/charges relate to the period when petitioner was posted in Allahabad and enquiry is pending against him on those charges. Subsequent to passing the impugned suspension order, the charge-sheet has been prepared which contains allegations that petitioner remained absent from duty from 18 to 24 June, 2003 without sanction of the leave, and earlier also he had proceeded on casual leave for 13 and 14 January, 2003, but, did not return on 15 January, 2003. He remained absent for one day, and thus petitioner does not deserve to be given any indulgence.
5. Shri T. P. Singh, in reply, has submitted that for remaining absent for one day earlier in January, 2003 he had already been warned. Thus considering the same again for the purpose of suspension and including that allegation in the charge-sheet, would amount to double jeopardy, which is not permissible.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The scope of interference by the Court in suspension matters has been examined by the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, particularly in State of M. P. v. Sardul Singh, 1970 (1) SCC 108; EVS. Srinivas Shastri v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 1993 (1) SCC 419; Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. Thavasiappan, 1992 (2) SCC 145; Director General, ESI and Anr. v. E. Abdul Razak,, 1997 (1) LBESR 287 (SC) ; JT 1996 (6) SC 502; Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence v. Denial Etc. , 1995 (Suppl.) SCC 374; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills v. Kushan Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806; U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjeev Rajan, 1993 (Supp.) 3 SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v. B. K. Meena and Ors. , 1996 (6) SCC 417 and Secretary to Govt. , Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, 1996 (3) SCC 157, and observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the Court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent Authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon him by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the Authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned.
8. In State of Orissa v. Vimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR 1994 SC 2296, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:
". . . . . . when an Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority seeks to suspend the employee the order of suspension would be passed taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the ap
