Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. R.S. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 5 and 7 and perused the record.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the present case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the head office at Lucknow in Nonconventional Energy Development Agency (hereinafter referred to as NEDA) and thereafter, promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. By order dated 31.10.2012 passed by District Election Officer, Lucknow, she was appointed as Booth Level Officer (hereinafter referred to as BLO) for doing election work in the election department for Parliamentary election of 2014. In pursuance to the said fact/order, opposite party No. 4, vide order dated 05.11.2012, relieved the petitioner for joining in the District Election Office, Lucknow and joined her duties. While she was working on the post of BLO, by order dated 09.01.2014 passed by opposite party No. 3, placed under suspension on the allegation that she has not performed her election duties in the office of NEDA. However, the same was kept in abeyance by the appointing authority by order dated 16.01.2014.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of suspension, petitioner moved an application on 26.12.2013 raising her grievances to the District Election Officer, Lucknow, who on 14.03.2014 wrote a letter to the competent authority/opposite party No. 3 for dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. As no heed paid, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 366 (SS) of 2014, disposed of by order dated 13.02.2014. Subsequently, an application was moved by the petitioner for correction of the said order and by order dated 24.03.2014 necessary correction was made in the order dated 13.02.2014 which reads as under: - - "C.M. Application No. 28181 of 2014 (For correction in the order dated 13.2.2014 passed by this Court). Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. The cause shown is sufficient. Application is allowed. Order dated 13.2.2014 is corrected. The corrected order is as under: - - Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Nishant Shukla for the opposite parties. The petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 9.1.2014, no charge sheet has been issued against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that once a government employee is placed under suspension, the charge sheet is not served for months together placing the employee under social embarrassment. The suspension is a matter, in which only the executive authority should normally be allowed to look into the charges. However, the suspension should also not be resorted to keep an employee eternally under suspension. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. The opposite parties will issue charge sheet to the petitioner, if not already issued, within a period of fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them. The petitioner will file reply to the charge sheet within fifteen days from the date the charge sheet is received by her. Thereafter, the opposite parties shall proceed to conclude the inquiry within a period of one month. On completion of inquiry the opposite parties shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner within fifteen days to which the petitioner shall submit her reply within fifteen days thereafter. The opposite parties shall pass final order within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry, failing which this order shall be of no avail. However, in case despite cooperation of the petitioner, the inquiry is not completed as directed above, the petitioner shall have the liberty to approach the Court once again. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.";