JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, P.W.D. UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-10-64
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 24,2013

Jagdish Chandra Kandpal Appellant
VERSUS
Principal Secretary, P.W.D. Uttarakhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, C.J. - (1.) In terms of the Rules made by the State Government, only in case of grave misconduct, a State Government employee may be suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. By an order dated 2nd September, 2013, petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, has been suspended. In the suspension order, it has been stated that, in the matter of construction of Lok Ayukt office building, there had been some shortcomings and the same were brought to the notice of the Public Works Department by the Secretary, Lok Ayukt in a letter dated 28th January, 2013 and in order to find out the truth and substance of the complaint made in the said letter dated 28th January, 2013, a preliminary inquiry was conducted when it transpired that the petitioner, by making unjust calculations, purported to show that M/s D.D.F. Consultant Private Limited has given a quotation of 93.9% of the estimate and that the petitioner returned the contract pertaining to the project without signing the same. In the body of the writ petition, it has been stated that D.D.F. Consultant Private Limited was not granted the contract. It has been contended that the rates submitted by DDF Consultant Private Limited were correctly evaluated by him and the same were duly and correctly reflected in the broad sheet. It has further been contended that the contract was given to a contractor, who had been declared by the State Government as a black-listed contractor and, accordingly, petitioner did not put his signature on the contract that was proposed to be entered with the said person. It was contended that the suspension order is mala fide and has been issued in order to conceal the true facts. We called for affidavits by an order dated 18th September, 2013. No affidavit has been filed. Therefore, it appears to us that the reasons furnished for the suspension are not sustainable.
(2.) We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and set aside the order of suspension. It shall be deemed that the petitioner was on duty but could not discharge his duties in view of the said suspension order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.