IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a suspension order is valid if serious allegations warrant an inquiry, and the petitioner has the opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry process.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by District Development Officer, Sitapur whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Village Development Officer and assigned his duties in Block - Kasmanda, District Sitapur on 10.10.2018 thereafter he has been transferred to Block - Mehmoodabad, District - Sitapur and he joined his duties on 05.07.2023.

4. While discharging his duties, certain complaints were made on the basis of which a three Member Committee was constituted which submitted its report on 23.08.2024. Relying on the reports of three Member Committee by means of impugned order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceedings.

5. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the first charge relates to work conducted under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in construction of Shahid Bhagat Singh Amrit Sarovar at village Panchayat Rajparapur, Block Mehmoodabad, District Sitapur where the allegation is that in fact the work which was shown to have been completed in the records, was never undertaken, and the work being done under the supervision of the petitioner he directly responsible for the same. The second charge relates to the payment pertaining to an amount of Rs. 1459558.00/- the bills of which were uploaded for payment while in fact the bills were never verified by the petitioner in his capacity as Village Development Officer, Mehmoodabad and accordingly the petitioner has been charged for attempting to make payments for which the bills were never verified by him.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a bare perusal of the order of suspension and perusal of the charges it has been stated that they are false and vague and with regard to the expenditure vouchers of Rs. 1459658.00/- it was stated that the said bills were uploaded by the Gram Rojgar Sewak without getting the same approved from the petitioner and when the petitioner informed about this fact to the authorities response was sought from The Gram Rojgar Sewak, who in his reply dated 23.09.2024 has admitted that due to his fault the expenditure has been uploaded without verification, and therefore submitted that no further enquiry deserves to be proceeded with when the Gram Rojgar Sewak has admitted his fault.

7. It has further been submitted that the work was duly undertaken and completed which according to three Member Committee was never undertaken and the said allegation itself is false and accordingly there is no reason to proceed against the petitioner in the present case inquiry proceedings and further there was no occasion for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension. It has been further submitted that inquiry proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a complaint which was never supported by an affidavit and according to the Government Order dated 9th May, 1997 no such inquiry could have been initiated and therefore the entire proceedings are illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.

8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. Based on written instructions, he has submitted that number of bills and vouchers were duly approved by the petitioner. It was further stated that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and may entail a major penalty and consequently there is no infirmity in the order of suspension and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the narration of allegations against the petitioner which have been mentioned in impugned order of suspension would indicate that cert