Advocates:
['VIJAY BHATT', '', 'DEVENDRA PANT', 'B D PANDE', 'Amar Shukla', 'PARIKSHIT SAINI']

 

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1581 of 2016

Pradeep Kumar

…

Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others

…Respondents

 

Present:

Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr.

Pooran

Singh

Bisht,

Brief

Holder

for

the

State/respondent nos. 1 & 2

Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Paresh

Tripathi, Advocate for respondent no. 6

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner is a routine grade clerk working

respondent no.5, he feeling himself aggrieved by the

order dated 02.07.2016 as passed by Respondent No.4,

seeks to challenge the same by virtue of the present

petition.

2.

By impugned order dated 02.07.2016, the

petitioner has been placed under suspension for the

precise charges of irregularities of non-compliance of

orders, causing financial loss to society, making

fraudulent

signature

of

Secretary

and

Manager

presenting himself before SLAO as Secretary giving

consent for quantum of compensation thus causing loss

etc., which have been leveled against him in the

impugned order of suspension passed by Secretary, Raja

Mahendra Pratap Snaatkottar Mahavidhyalaya, Gurukul

 

2

Narsan, District Haridwar. By virtue of the order, an

Enquiry Committee has already been directed to be

constituted and he had been made entitled for the

allowances as admissible for a suspended employee.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised

two fold arguments. Firstly, he submits that the

suspension order cannot be sustained for the reason

that the same has been passed by the Secretary of the

College, who is not the appointing authority; secondly,

the impugned order of suspension is not tenable as

there was no prior approval, was taken from the District

Inspector of Schools (now designated as the Chief

Education Officer) prior to passing the impugned order.

4.

This Court feels that both the arguments so

far as challenge being given to the suspension order are

untenable. The rational behind it is that in accordance

with the Bye-Laws (Annexure-10 to Writ Petition) as

applicable to the College in question, which governs the

terms and conditions of service of the staff in its sub-

Clause (20) of Clause III defines “Manager”. The Manager

includes the Secretary, who would be an ex-officio

manager of the school. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to sub-

Clause (35) of Clause III which deals with the

appointment of the members of the staff which provides

that the appointments of staff would be made by the

Executive Committee on the recommendations of the

 

3

Manager. Since the order of suspension has been passed

by the Secretary, which is also an office adorned by the

Manager, who under sub-clause (35) of Clause III

represents the decision of the Executive Committee no

anomaly could be found so far as the competence of the

Secretary is concerned, to pass impugned order.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support

of his second argument submits and he has drawn the

attention of this Court to clause 21.02 of Chapter 21 of

Hemwati

Nandan

Bahuguna

Garhwal

University,

Srinagar, First Statute as published in U.P. Extra

Ordinary Gazette dated 25^th June, 1978. He submits

that in accordance with clause (3) for any decision taken

under clause 2 of clause 21.02 of Chapter 21, it

contemplates that before the decision is communicated

to the employee, a prior approval from the District

Inspector of School is required to be taken and until the

said approval is taken, no such decision taken in clause

2 would be made effective.

6.

Though no such pleading has been raised by

the petitioner nor any ground has been taken in the

light of the statute, but since the same had been argued,

its necessary to deal with the contention of the

petitioner.

7.

There