State Of U.P. Throu.... v. Sri. Ramesh Chandra ...

Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

Having regard to the circumstances, a short delay of 2 months and 16 days in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken on regular side.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2014 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4579 (S/S) of 2014. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has found justified the grievance of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) against the impugned order 22.08.2014 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Mirzapur placing him under suspension; and has set aside the suspension order while putting the present appellants at liberty to enquire into the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner.

On a perusal of the order impugned and the material placed on record, it appears that the facts emerging before the learned Single Judge had been that earlier, the writ petitioner was sought to be transferred, allegedly at the behest of State Minister, Bal Vikas, Pushtahar and Basic Education. The transfer order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 43085 (S/S) of 2012 and the transfer of the writ petitioner was stayed by the order dated 04.09.2012 It had also appeared before the learned Single Judge that further, an enquiry was made against the writ petitioner on a complaint; and even in that respect, the enquiry report was made on 09.07.2014 finding the allegations to be totally false and unfounded. It was then noticed that yet another complaint was made against the writ petitioner whereupon a preliminary enquiry report was drawn suggesting of certain questionable dealings of the writ petitioner in relation to the vehicles registered in the names of his wife and brother. It had been in relation to such allegations that the appellants instituted disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner and he was also ordered to be put under suspension by the impugned order dated 22.08.2014

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge observed that the charges against the writ petitioner were yet to be established and prima facie, they did not appear to be leading to a case of major punishment. Hence, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of suspension but while giving the appellants liberty to enquire into the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner.

Seeking to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, essentially, the contention on the part of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has relied on the enquiry report dated 09.07.2014 which was filed by way of a supplementary affidavit whereas the suspension order dated 22.08.2014 was passed in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings instituted on the basis of the enquiry report dated 19.08.2014 Thus, according to the appellants, the earlier report dated 09.07.2014 on different allegations had no corelation with the present proceedings; and looking to the gravity of the charges, the writ petitioner had rightly been put under suspension. The appellants contend that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 in a mechanical manner without providing any opportunity of filing a counter affidavit to them; and without examining all the relevant factual aspects.

Though it appears that the appellants were not afforded opportunity of filing a counter affidavit but then, writ petitioner prima facie made out a case that he was being victimized inasmuch as he was earlier sought to be transferred and the transfer order was stayed by this Court; and then, a complaint was made against him suggesting of illegal demands but such a complaint was found to be baseless in the report dated 09.07.2014

In the given background, upon examination of the impugned order dated 22.08.2014, it appears that indirect nature suggestions have been made about the writ petitioner having indulged into unfair dealings in relation to the vehicles registered in the names of his wife and brother. On an examination of contents of the order dated 22.08.2014, the learned Single Judge found it to be a case which may not be lead to major punishment; and in the given backdrop, found no justification to put the writ petitioner under suspension.

The relevant part of the order dated 22.08.2014 could be taken note of as under:

It remains indisputable that the appellants cannot suggest any further ground or justification in the order of suspension than what is contained in the order dated 22.08.2014 The ground as suggested with reference to the allegations as made, being of such nature where enquiry could be proceeded without suspension of the writ petitioner and appropriate decision could be taken in accordance with law, we find no reason to show interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this matter.

In view of the above, this appeal is required to be and is hereby dismissed.

However, we make it clear that we have not pronounced on the allegations against the writ petitioner; and reiterate that the respondents are at liberty to enquire into the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner in accordance with law.