Back
AJIT KUMAR
Ram Ratan Suman – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.- Heard Sri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner who is working with respondent Corporation and currently posted as Accounts Officer in the office of Regional Chief Accounts Officer, Ghaziabad, has been placed under suspension vide order dated 08th July, 2024 passed by Managing Director in contemplation of enquiry.
3. Two fold arguments has been advanced by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner:
(a). Charges are vague and very casual qua discharge of official duty by the petitioner, inasmuch as one Manish Kumar Gupta, the Office Assistant was assigned the duty relating to the work and information of tenders and so petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability as such as have been discussed in the order impugned; and
(b) There is no objective consideration which may have weighed mind of the disciplinary authority in arriving at decision to place the petitioner under suspension.
4. Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Arvind Kumar Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(8) ADJ 659. He has placed before the Court paragraph 15,16 a
Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to pla....
Suspension of service –Misconduct - Preliminary enquiry -Whether there was falsification of record deliberately by petitioners or under duress by superior authority petitioners resorted to such illeg....
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
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....
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....
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
The court established that the suspension order extending beyond three months without serving a charge sheet was contrary to law and unjustified, constituting a failure of justice.
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
