Back
PRAKASH PADIA
Brajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Padia, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam, and Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shivi Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The challenge in the instant writ petition is to an order of suspension dated 24.1.2024. Since the impugned order is assailed only on a legal ground, learned counsel for parties have consented to the disposal of the present petition without exchange of affidavits.
3. The order of suspension is assailed principally on the ground that although the power to suspend an employee inheres in the respondent to be exercised in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings as provided under the 1991 Rules, the communication appearing at page-27 of the paper book dated 13.2.2024 establishes that the power to suspend has been exercised while a preliminary enquiry is being undertaken. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid communication clearly establishes that the impugned order represents a colorable exercise of power without satisfaction having been recorded on the issue of a regular departmental enquiry being necessitated.
4. Undisputedly the law with respe
Suspension orders must be based on objective evidence of a departmental inquiry, not merely on preliminary inquiries.
Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
When an administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks conscious of Court in a sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards, power of judicial re....
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
Suspension orders must not exceed three months without a charge-sheet; otherwise, they are unsustainable in law.
Point of law: In cases involving embezzlement of money, it is advisable that the concern employee is kept out so that they may not be able to perpetrate any further mischief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulatio....
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
