Point of Law: Merely because 10 years have elapsed since the charge-sheet had been filed cannot be a ground to the respondent to come back to duty on a sensitive post of the bank till he is exonerated of the charges.

JUDGMENT :

SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the suspension order dated 24.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 1.

3. The petitioner was appointed as District Social Welfare Officer. He was promoted to the post of Additional District Development Officer on 07.01.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Mathura on the post of District Social Welfare Officer/Additional District Development Officer on 27.06.2017.

4. It appears that a report was published in the newspaper Times of India, Lucknow on 11.08.2018 regarding defalcation of funds allocated for students fee reimbursement as well as scholarship by the Directors/Managers and principals of I.T.I. institutions in Mathura. Acting on the said report, the state government constituted a committee to enquire into the allegations of misappropriation of fund of fee reimbursement and scholarship of the students.

5. The committee enquired into the matter and submitted the report on 27.11.2020. The committee found that the allegation of misappropriation of fund prima-facie is correct. Based on the aforesaid report, an F.I.R. was also lodged against the erring officers including petitioner under Sections 409, 420 and 468 of I.P.C. Thereafter, petitioner was suspended by order dated 24.12.2020 on the ground that in the inquiry conducted by three members committee in respect of allegations of misappropriation of fund of fee reimbursement and scholarship, it was prima-facie found that the petitioner was involved in collusion with private ITI institutions in misappropriation of about 23 crores of public money allotted for scholarship and reimbursement of the fee to students.

6. Challenging the suspension order, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged that more than seven months have passed from the date of the suspension order, neither charge-sheet has been issued nor the inquiry has commenced, therefore, the petitioner cannot remain in suspension for an indefinite period, hence, the suspension order deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary, (2015) 7 SCC 291.

7. He further contends that the inquiry report reveals that it does not indict the petitioner, therefore, the suspension order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. He submits that petitioner has issued recovery orders for recovery of the embezzled amount, therefore, the charge against the petitioner of defalcation of huge public money in the suspension order on the face of the record is incorrect. He further submits that the affiliation of private ITI institutions was canceled which has been stayed by this Court in several writ petitions and order of one of such petitions passed in Writ (C) No. 928 of 2021 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. He also contends that several officers have been named in the inquiry report, but only the petitioner has been suspended, therefore, the action of the respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory. Thus, he contends that the suspension order is not sustainable in law.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the charge against the petitioner is serious inasmuch as the petitioner is said to be involved in embezzlement of Rs. 23 crores which is huge public money allotted for fee reimbursement and scholarship to students, and therefore, considering the nature of the charge leveled against the petitioner, the petitioner has rightly been suspended. He submits that considering the gravity of the charge, the petitioner must be kept out of duty so that he may not manipulate or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that to substantiate the charge against the petitioner that h