Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Dharmendra Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 2 Others - Respondents
WRIT - A NO. 2033 OF 2023.
Decided On : 03-07-2023
For the Petitioner:Kumar Sreshtha, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 - Rules 3 & 4 (A) - U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Order of suspension of the petitioner challenged as unwarranted, arguing that charges did not entail major punishment - Court found that charge was only of negligence, hence suspension unjustified. (Paras 6, 14, 16, 19)
(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - Petition for quashing suspension order; held that the matter did not warrant interference as the inquiry could proceed. (Paras 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as Deputy Labour Commissioner, was suspended following a complaint regarding his failure to meet personally with a foreign investor's representative, which was deemed a violation of official duties. A complaint led to suspension, despite the petitioner claiming proper conduct.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was not found to have committed misconduct warranting suspension; thus, the order was set aside.
Issues: Whether the suspension was justified based on the alleged failure to personally attend to a representative of the company, and if the charges could substantiate a major punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations amounted to mere negligence and did not fulfill the criteria for major disciplinary action as outlined in applicable rules.
Result: Writ petition allowed, suspension order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suspension order challenged by petitioner (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for and against suspension order (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's examination of charges against petitioner (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's final ruling on the suspension (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Saral Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kumar Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-IInd for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the suspension order dated 12.01.2023.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner since July, 2022 is posted as Deputy Labour Commissioner, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The petitioner issued three notices to the M/s. SEIKO Advance (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to called as 'Company') for deposit of labour cess with regard to factory construction at Plot Nos.108, 109 and 110, Surajpur, Site-V, Guatam Buddh Nagar fixing 07.01.2023 for the purpose of objection by the Company. The representative of the company appeared before the petitioner on the date fixed and since the petitioner was engaged in scheduled meeting of the Labour Enforcement Officers, the petitioner instructed the concerned clerk and Labour Enforcement Officer to receive the documents which was submitted by representative of the company and to fix an early date for disposal of notices.
4. It appears that one of the directors of the Company being dissatisfied with the response of the petitioner made a complaint before the State Government against the petitioner. Acting upon the said complaint, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh issued a communication dated 09.01.2023 to the petitioner calling for a report with regard to the said complaint as inquiry was under way by two member committee consisting of Additional Labour Commissioner U.P. and Deputy Labour Commissioner.
5. On receiving the communication dated 09.01.2023, the petitioner called for an explanation from the concerned Labour Enforcement Officer, and after obtaining explanation from the concerned Enforcement Officer, the petitioner submitted a report dated 09.01.2023 to the Additional Labour Commissioner (Establishment), Kanpur. The petitioner also passed an order of suspension and institution of disciplinary proceedings against Mithilesh Kumar Sinha on 09.01.2023. However, the order dated 12.01.2023 was passed by the State Government instituting the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and suspending the petitioner, which order is impugned in writ petition.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent State stating therein that on receiving a complaint through email, a committee consisting of Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur was constituted which submitted its report in which it was stated that the petitioner was not discharging his duties properly nor he attended the foreign investors directly as desired by the State Government neither he gave time to them and the petitioner entrusted his juniors to do the same. Consequently, the Government passed an order dated 12.01.2023 suspending the petitioner and instituting disciplinary proceedings as his conduct was not appropriate and was in contravention of Rules 3 & 4 (A) of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
7. It is further stated that the petitioner may submit his defence in the inquiry proceedings and at this stage, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
8. Challenging the suspension order learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suspension order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind inasmuch as the charge against the petitioner in the suspension order is not such which may entail major punishment against the petitioner. He submits that the suspension order
