WPSB/315/2013 of Harsh Bahadur Chand Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER on 30 December 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 315 OF 2013

Harsh Bahadur Chand

………..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ……Respondents.

Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents.

Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

Suspension has been dealt with in the Statutory Rules, where it has been provided as follows:

“A government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority; Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegation against the government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty.”

2. By the order dated 17[th] October, 2013, petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. We directed the State Government to file an affidavit and, with that affidavit, bring on record the letters referred to in the suspension order. Those have been brought on record. From the said letters, it appears that on 22[nd] February, 2013, in connection with a litigation, following three information were sought from the petitioner:-

i) The Education Guarantee Centre, Chaterpur Bagichi was closed on 31[st] March, 2008, but, in that Centre, one Sri Yashwant Singh was shown to have worked from 1[st] October, 2008 to 31[st] March, 2009;

ii) On whose order, the said Education Guarantee Centre continued to function after 31[st] March, 2008 to 31[st] March, 2009; and continued to function after 31[st] March, 2008 to 31[st] March, 2009; and iii) If the said Education Guarantee Centre continued to function even after 31[st] March, 2008, why Sri Pradhumn Kumar was not permitted to work there.

3. Since no reply to the said letter was given, a reminder was given on 5[th] April, 2013 followed by a reminder dated 16[th] May, 2013.

4. Petitioner gave a reply on 17[th] May, 2013 and, in that, he indicated that, despite closer of the said Centre on 31[st] March, 2008, taking into account the requirement of the students of the said Centre, the Centre was opened on 1[st] October, 2008 and thereafter, the said Centre continued until 31[st] October, 2009 and is continuing even thereafter. It was stated that when the Centre was reopened on 1[st]October, 2008 after its closer on 31[st] March, 2008, Sri Pradhumn Kumar was not permitted to continue, inasmuch as, he was not a graduate and another person by the name Sri Yashwant Singh, who was a graduate, was engaged in accordance with the instructions issued by the Directorate. On 20[th] May, 2013, petitioner was called upon by a letter of the Directorate to produce the directions or instructions of the Directorate, on the basis where of, petitioner purported to act as was reported by him. This letter has not yet been replied, nor in the body of the petition, anything has been stated pertaining to the said letter. That being the situation, it would not be possible for us to hold that the allegation against the petitioner to the effect that he acted in a manner unwarranted is such that, on the basis thereof, in the contemplated disciplinary proceeding, petitioner cannot be awarded a major penalty. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2013

Rathour