Back
2005 Supreme(UK) 529
2006 (1) U.D., 32
High Court of Uttaranchal
Hon'ble Cyriac Joseph, C;J. and Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.
Mahendra Kumar Tayal - Pititioner
Vs.
State of Uttaranchal - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 129 of 2005 (S/B),
decided on 15-12-2005.
Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
B. D. Kandpal, Standing Counsel for the respondent.,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suspension of an employee should be based on a fair and judicious consideration of the necessity and potential influence on the inquiry, and the exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority should not be arbitrary.
Headnote:
Suspension Order - Public Works Department - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - 29-05-2005 - Suspension order dated 29-05-2005 - Public Works Section-1, Uttaranchal Government - Suspension order quashed - Suspension revoked
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department, was suspended due to alleged irregularities in the construction of a road and bridge. The suspension order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that no construction or payment was made during his tenure for the bridge in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order did not reflect proper consideration of relevant aspects and exercised its discretion improperly. It was noted that the petitioner's presence in a different division would not influence or prejudice the inquiry. As a result, the suspension order was quashed, and the petitioner's suspension was revoked with immediate effect.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the suspension order, the consideration of relevant aspects by the disciplinary authority, and the potential influence of the petitioner's presence on the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspension of an employee should be based on a proper consideration of whether it is necessary in the public interest and whether the employee's continuance in service during the inquiry is undesirable or likely to influence the proceedings. The court also highlighted the need for fair and judicious exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority.
Final Decision: The court quashed the suspension order and revoked the petitioner's suspension with immediate effect, directing the government to post the petitioner at any place of its choice.
1. By means of this Writ Petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of 'India, "the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 29-05"2005 (Annexure-8) passed by Secretary, Public Works Section-1, Uttaranchal Government, Dehradun-Respondent.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed ,as a Junior Engineer in Public Works Department at Gorakhpur on 23-09-1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 02-06-1989 and again he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department on 06-09-1997 and he' was posted in ,Constructio'1 Division. of P.W.D. Baizero, Distt Pauri Garhwal. After the formation' of, State of 'Uttaranchat, ,the petitioner opted for the State of Uttaranchal and he remained posted there till 15-04-2000. Mr. Tara Chand Ravi was posted as Executive Engineer, Construction Division, P.W.D. Srinagar during the period when the construction of road Kandai-Kamoldi-Molakhakhal at Manjheri Ghat, Block Agastmuni and bridge over there was sanctioned in the year 1999. Sri Tara Chand Ravi, Executive Engineer was transferred from Construction Division, Public Works Department Srinagar to Public Works Department, Haridwar. The petitioner who was posted as Executive Engineer at Construction Division, Pauri was transferred to Construction Division, Srinagar vide order dated 15-04-2000 in place of Sri Tara Chand Ravi. Pursuant to the said transfer order, the petitioner joined his place of transfer at Srinagar on 2904-2000. The petitioner was again transferred from Srinagar to Haridwar. After being relieved from Sri nagar, he joined the Provincial Division of Public Works Department, Haridwar on 20-06-2001. Thus the petitioner remained posted as Executive Engineer in Construction Division of Public Works Department at Sri nagar, Pauri Garhwal from 29-04-2000 to 20-06-2001 only. Sri Tara Chand Ravi Executive Engineer was again posted at Sri nagar, Pauri Garhwal In place of the petitioner.
3. In the month of February, 1999 a bridge was sanctioned by the State Government over the road connecting Kandai-Kamoldi-Molakhakhal at Manjheri Ghat which was situated in block Agustmuni, Rudraprayag. The construction of the aforesaid bridge was given to the contractor Meharban Singh Rawat after inviting the tender and thereafter an agreement was also executed between the Tara Chand Ravi, the then Executive Engineer of construction Division of Public Works Department, Srinagar and the contractor Meharban Singh Rawat on 1612-1999 for the construction of the aforesaid bridge. The construction work was to commence from 16-12-1999 and it was to be completed by 15th December, 2000 according to the aforesaid agreement. Shri Tara Chand Ravi, Executive Engineer made the payments of Rs. 9,92,261/- on 12-03-2000 and Rs. 7,24,045/ - on 17-03-2000 to the Contractor. Sri Tara Chand Ravi, Executive Engineer again made the third running payment to the contractor on 31-03-2002.
4. The Govt. further sanctioned the construction of Kandai-Kamoldi-Molakhakhal road in Agastmuni, Rudraprayag in the month of March, 1999 while Mr. Tara Chand Ravi was posted as Executive Engineer in the Division and the Govt. sanctioned the estimate of Rs. 88.13 lacs of the said road. The Govt. allotted Rs. 40 lacs for the construction of the aforementioned road for the year. 2000-2001 out of the estimated cost of Rs. 88.13 lacs and Mr. Tara Chand Ravi the then Executive Engineer spent Rs. 39.97 lacs. For the next year budget 2000-2001, the State Govt. sanctioned the amount of Rs. 40.30 lacs for the construction of the said road and this entire amount was spent by the petitioner for the construction of the aforesaid road. In the year 2001-2002, the petitioner further spent Rs. 4,349/- on the said road till 19-06-2001.
5. A number of complaints were received by the Govt. with regard to irregularities in the construction of t
