- (1.) Having been unsuccessful in his challenge to an order of suspension, the original petitioner is in appeal. The appellant instituted writ proceedings assailing an order of suspension dated 15 January, 2016 passed by the second respondent. The writ petition has come to be disposed of with the learned single Judge holding that considering the allegations recorded in the impugned order, no interference was warranted with the order of suspension. Noticing the submission of the counsel for the appellant that no charge-sheet had been served upon him, the writ petition was disposed of calling upon the respondents to issue a charge-sheet to the appellant within fifteen days in case they contemplate holding a departmental enquiry and that the enquiry itself be completed within a period of two months. The judgment rendered by the learned single Judge on 10 February, 2016 forms subject matter of this appeal.
(2.) The appellant is a Lekhpal attached to the office of the second respondent. It transpires that a complaint with regard to illegal construction on public utility land was made on 5 January, 2016. This complaint was marked by the second respondent for further compliance to the appellant. As the order impugned in the writ petition itself records, the complaint dated 5 January, 2016 was handed over to the appellant on 12 January, 2016. On 15th/19th January, 2016, the second respondent passed an order suspending the appellant. The order records that despite the complaint having been duly forwarded to the appellant for compliance, no steps had been taken by him as a result of which the image of the department had been sullied and the second respondent embarrassed before his superior officers. The second respondent proceeded to hold that the appellant was guilty of having conducted himself in violation of the Conduct Rules and also having failed to abide by directions issued by a superior officer. On this state of the record, the second respondent proceeded to suspend the appellant.
(3.) In the writ petition the appellant had averred that upon receipt of the complaint on 12 January, 2016, he sent a communication to the complainant on 14 January, 2016 to be present on site on 18 January, 2016 when in his presence further action may be taken. It was further asserted that on 18 January, 2016 a spot inspection was undertaken whereafter a report was submitted by the appellant recording that the encroachment and illegal construction cannot be removed by the consolidation authorities and that the same would have to be demolished by the tehsil authorities with the aid of police force. A report of the spot inspection was duly submitted.;