Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2981
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Chandra Boss - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 66759 of 2013
Decided On : 17-12-2013
For the Petitioner: Yogendra Sahai Saxena
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must apply its mind to the gravity of the misconduct before passing an order of suspension, and compliance with the directive of a Minister does not absolve the appointing authority from its statutory duty.
Headnote:
Suspension - Administrative Law - Rule 4(1) of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1999, which confers power of suspension upon authority and emphasized that an order of suspension should not be passed without independent application of mind. The court highlighted the civil consequences of suspension and the requirement for the appointing authority to apply its mind to the gravity of the misconduct before passing an order of suspension. The court also emphasized the adverse effects of unreasonable prolonged suspension on the employee's status and reputation in society.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, contending that the suspension was arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner was not relieved by his superior officer to attend a meeting, and the suspension was solely based on the directive of the concerned Minister without proper application of mind by the appointing authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order of suspension was passed without independent application of mind by the appointing authority and solely at the dictates of the concerned Minister, which violated the statutory requirement of Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1999. The court also criticized the appointing authority for surrendering to the command of the Minister and failing to fulfill its statutory duty.
Issues: The issues involved the arbitrary and illegal suspension of the petitioner without proper application of mind by the appointing authority, the compliance with the directive of the concerned Minister, and the failure to consider the gravity of the misconduct before passing the suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointing authority must apply its mind to the gravity of the misconduct before passing an order of suspension, and compliance with the directive of a Minister does not absolve the appointing authority from its statutory duty. The court emphasized the adverse effects of unreasonable prolonged suspension on the employee's status and reputation in society.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of suspension was set aside. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits and awarded a cost of Rs.25,000, to be paid by the State of U.P. with liberty to recover the same from the concerned appointing authority.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.: -
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I have proceeded to decide the writ petition finally under the Rules of the Court on the basis of record available with this Court i.e. writ petition and affidavit of respondent no.1.
2. This writ petition is directed against order of suspension dated 27.8.2013 passed by Director General, Vikas Dal Evam Yuva Kalyan, U.P. at Lucknow, respondent no.1.
3. Sri Y.S.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, inasmuch as, the immediate superior officers of petitioner did not relieve him to participate in the meeting convened by respondent at Lucknow on the ground that there was an official function at Badaun, which was to be presided by Chief Minister himself and petitioner was assigned duty in the said official programme at Badaun and this fact was also reported by immediate superior officers to the respondent no.1 yet respondent no.1 has taken absence of petitioner at Lucknow to be a deliberate, intentional defiance and act of indiscipline, as a result whereof, impugned order of suspension has been passed though petitioner was not at all responsible for such absence as he was already assigned official duty at Badaun by superior officer, who did not relieve him and, therefore, impugned order is patently illegal, showing non application of mind on the part of respondent no.1.
4. Looking to the record, which, prima facie, substantiated the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner, this Court required respondent no.1 vide order dated 6.12.2013 to file an affidavit of his own to show as to how he found petitioner guilty of any act or omission constituting misconduct when petitioner was not relieved by superior officer.
5. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 6.12.2013 Sri Ram Singh, holding the office of Director General, Vikas Dal Evam Yuva Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow has filed affidavit sworn on 17.12.2013. In para 6 thereof, he has categorically stated that order of suspension was passed by him at the dictates of concerned Minister, who took petitioner's absence as a serious act of misconduct showing dereliction of duty, indiscipline, defiance and disobedience of orders of higher authorities and negligence and lack of devotion in discharge of official duties. Since Minister concerned has directed respondent no.1 to suspend petitioner, therefore, he (petitioner) was placed under suspension. In para 8, respondent no.1 has again categorically said that he has simply complied with orders of Hon'ble Minister. Since power of suspension is vested in him, and, therefore, he has passed the order but it is nothing but mere compliance orders of Hon'ble Minister, who presided the meeting held on 26.8.2013 at Lucknow. He has further stated that reason for absence of petitioner was not available in the office of respondent no.1 till the date of meeting when substitute of petitioner, who attended the meeting, informed him. He has placed on record, Chief Development Officer, Badaun's letter dated 24.8.2013 giving information that it is not possible to relieve petitioner so as to attend meeting on 26.8.2013 at Lucknow since petitioner has been assigned duty in Laptop distribution programme to be conducted from 20.8.2013 to 27.8.2013 and this letter was received in the office of Director on 3.9.2013.
6. Sri Ram Singh, the officer concerned, when enquired that he being the competent authority to place petitioner under suspension, when received information about reason of petitioner for his absence to participate in the meeting at Lucknow disclosed by his substitute, who came to attend the meeting at Lucknow then what was the occasion to hold petitioner guilty of deliberate defiance in not attending the meeting when he was not relieved by his superior officer, he said that since a direction was issued by the Minister, he was not in a position to ta
