Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1990/2013 of Om Prakash Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 28 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1990 of 2013(S/S) Om Prakash Sharma ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ......….Respondents. Present: Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harendra Belwal, Brief Holder for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1990 of 2013(S/S)
Om Prakash Sharma
Versus
……Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand and others
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harendra Belwal, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).
......….Respondents.
Petitioner who is Head Master in Government Primary School, Kasampur, Block Bahadarabad, District Haridwar was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 25.11.2013 on two grounds – (i) on subordination and (ii) for not producing the certificates of educational qualifications.
as under :-
On 18.12.2013, this Court passed order which reads “Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court dated 30[th ]October, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 1713 of 2013 (S/S) (Mahendrapal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others) submits that suspension order on the face of it is illegal.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel seeks and is granted three days’ time to obtain instructions. List in the next week.”
This Court in the case of Mahendrapal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others (WPSS No. 1713 of 2013)decided on 30.10.2013 has observed as under :- “When an appointing authority proceeds to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and order of suspension should not be passed in a routine or automatic manner. It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where are disciplinary proceedings contemplated. Appointing authority must be satisfied that continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may cause a reasonable apprehension that it will influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. It should always be kept in mind by the appointing authority that though suspension is not a punishment, however, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, an order of suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind.
Order of suspension need not contain the recital of the reasons which has resulted into the passing of the suspension order. If the suspension order is questioned before a Court of law, the appointing authority must show before the Court of law that before passing the suspension order the case of the delinquent employee was considered properly and suspension order was found to be desirable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the gravity of the misconduct or continuance of the officer in the office may likely to influence the proceedings. If the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority fails to show that the grounds of suspension were considered before passing the suspension order, the suspension order so passed is liable to be quashed.”
Having perused the impugned order and having heard Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned Brief Holder for the State, I am of the view that nothing is brought on record by the respondents, which could indicate that before passing the impugned order, Disciplinary Authority had formed any opinion to the effect that while continuing in the office, petitioner may hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary investigation pending against him, therefore, suspension order seems to have been passed in routine manner. Moreover, the charges as indicated in the suspension order seem to be not so grave which may result in the major penalty of dismissal or removal. Therefore, impugned suspension order does not sustain in the eyes of law.
Consequently, present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension is hereby quashed, however, respondents are expected to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner preferably within six months from today and the petitioner shall cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings.
CLMA NO. 13913 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.)
28.12. 2013
Avneet