Back
2001 Supreme(UK) 66
2002 (2) 2002 (2) UC 512
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
AADESAI, C.J. & M. C. JAIN, J.
Chandra Mohan Pande &Anr
Versus
State of Uttaranchal & Others
W.P. No. 731 (S/B) of 2001
Decided on 09.05.2001
Suspension can be justified by the department based on the nature of the charge, its gravity, and implication.
Headnote:
Suspension - Departmental Action - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Certain contractors carried out work without the acceptance of their bid or contract. The Executive Engineer was suspended and the Assistant Engineers were also suspended pending inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the Assistant Engineers was not improper, considering the serious implication of the contractors' actions and the ongoing inquiry against the Executive Engineer.
Issues: The issue was whether the suspension of the Assistant Engineers was justified in the absence of acceptance of their bid or contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspension can be resorted to by the department based on the nature of the charge, its gravity, and implication, and found no impropriety in the suspension of the Assistant Engineers in this case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the direction for the department to frame charges and complete the inquiry expeditiously.
A.A. DESAI & M.C. JAIN, J. Mr. Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed before us a settled proposition that suspension can not be as a matter of course. The suspension can be resorted to by the department having regard to the nature of charge, its gravity and implication. According to learned counsel, the suspension is without application of mind We heard him at length. He has also referred certain documents.
2. Undisputedly, certain contractors carried work of widening of the road even in absence of acceptance of their bid or contract. This aspect certainly has a serious implication. The department has already suspended the Executive Engineer, who is facing inquiry. In the instant suspension of the Assistant Engineers, we do not see any impropriety. We,' therefore, do not propose to interfere with.
3. However, the department shall frame charge and complete the inquiry expeditiously.
he writ petition is dismissed.
