- (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed by Satish Kumar Pandey, Junior Engineer in the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the writ petition filed by the Petitioner -Appellant for quashing the suspension order dated 31st May, 2011 was dismissed.
(2.) IT transpires from the record of the writ petition that a show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 was issued to the Petitioner by the Vice -Chairman of the Development Authority pursuant to the inspection made on 19th May, 2001 in which details of nine illegal constructions raised by certain persons in Zone No. 1 were mentioned. The Petitioner was asked to file a reply since, as a Junior Engineer posted in the said Zone, he should have taken steps to stop such constructions and take appropriate action. The Petitioner claims to have filed a reply to the aforesaid notice on 23rd May, 2011 but subsequently, the order dated 31st May, 2011 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Uttar Pradesh for suspension of the Petitioner in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner was also attached to the Rampur Development Authority and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The suspension order not only refers to the nine illegal constructions mentioned in the show cause notice dated 19th May, 2011 issued to the Petitioner by the Vice -Chairman of the Development Authority but also refers to the incident said to have been taken place on 26th May, 2011. It is alleged that the Petitioner, during the course of the weekly meeting held on 26th May, 2011 in the Development Authority, started shouting and collected employees of the Development Authority by misleading them and started raising slogans. The Vice -Chairman of the Development Authority was also stopped from using the lift or the stairs and he was even stopped from using his Government vehicle.
(3.) THIS suspension order dated 31st May, 2011 was assailed by the Appellant in Writ Petition No. 33865 of 2011. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: Heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Umesh Narayan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority. The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed dated 31st May, 2011, by which the certain charges have been levelled against the Petitioner and inquiry has been instituted. Pursuant to the pendency of the inquiry, the Petitioner has been suspended. Petitioner is a Junior Engineer, posted at Allahabad with the Allahabad Development authority. The Inquiry Officer has been appointed. Prima facie it appears that some of the charges if proved, may entail dismissal of the Petitioner from his post. Suspension pending inquiry has been held not to be punishment. It is always open for the Petitioner to participate in the inquiry and put forward his defence against the charges levelled. It is only in the inquiry the true facts can be brought out and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension at this stage. However, it is provided that if the Petitioner furnishes reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Office within a period of one week and cooperates with the inquiry, then the inquiry shall be completed within a period of 2 and half months from the date of submission of reply to the charge sheet by the Petitioner. It is further directed that in case the inquiry is not completed within the specified period inspite of full cooperation of the Petitioner, the suspension order shall cease to have any effect and will stand revoked and the Petitioner will be deemed to be reinstated. Subject to the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands dismissed.;