MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-12-53
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 19,2013

MOHAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) Counter affidavit of D.L. Sah, District Education Officer (Primary), Gopeshwar, District Chamoli is handed over in Court and is taken on record.
(2.) Petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 21.11.2013 for the charges that petitioner remains absent without prior information; petitioner is negligent in discharging duties, school remains open only till 12 Noon and is closed prior to the stipulated time; free books were not distributed among students; Shiksha Mitra Smt. Kamla Mehra remained absent from July, 2012 to January, 2013, even then her presence was marked by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.
(3.) 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 inquirer 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 disciplinary proceedings are 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.";


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