V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) Petitioner had. been performing and discharging his duties as Office Assistant-II. Petitioner has contended that genesis of the entire controversy lies in an altercation which took place on 18th November, 2006 between the petitioner and Sri K.L. Sharma, Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Mathura Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Mathura respondent No.. 5. Petitioner has contended that he made complaint in writing on 22nd November, 2006 before Deputy General Manger qua insult metted to him and threat was extended to him and copy of complaint was also forwarded to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. Petitioner has contended that as a consequence of such complaint respondent No. 5 got highly infuriated and issued orders for withholding his salary. Petitioner submits that he met Sri K.L. Sharma, Executive Engineer who started abusing and threatening him and he was helped by respondent No. 6 and petitioner seriously perturbed by the conduct of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 again approached the Deputy General Manager on 22nd January, 2007. Petitioner has submitted that complaints which were made did not meet any fate rather same proved to be counter productive and he was transferred on 31st January, 2007. Petitioner thereafter submits that thereafter he has been placed under suspension on 2nd February, 2007. Petitioner submits that he thereafter filed an appeal against the order of transfer. Petitioner submits that he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20120 of 2007. Said writ petition has been decided on 17th May, 2007 by means of following order : "Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Saxena appearing for the respondents.. A supplementary affidavit has been filed along with which the petitioner has filed copy of the suspension order dated 2nd February, 2007. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 2nd February, 2007 and the transfer order dated 31st January, 2007. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on the allegation that on 30th January, 2007 in the Revenue Camp he has abused the Executive Officer and slapped. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, contended that no inquiry is contemplated and the suspension has been ordered merely on allegation. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The suspension has been ordered on allegation, which is of serious nature. The order itself shows that the respondents are satisfied that this is a case of disciplinary proceeding. From the order, it is clear that decision has already been taken to hold disciplinary enquiry, hence the submission of the petitioner's Counsel that no inquiry is contemplated is not correct. Further the submission of the petitioner that it is merely on allegation may be a defence of the petitioner which can be gone into and inquired in the inquiry. At this stage on the above submission no fault can be found with the suspension order. By order dated 31st January, 2007 the petitioner was transferred to another division. There is no error in the above order as it has been passed on administrative ground and the same cannot be interfered with. It is however, observed that disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall be expeditiously concluded preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
(2.) After said judgment has been delivered by the order dated 06.2007 has been passed by Managing Director, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vittran Nigam Ltd. Agra appointing the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vittran Nigam Ltd. Lai Diggi Aligarh, respondent No. 3 as Inquiry Officer and directing that entire enquiry proceedings be concluded 8.2007. Petitioner submits that thereafter charge-sheet has been sent through Speed Post to the petitioner which has been received. Petitioner submits that issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner is an act of high handed nature; same is without jurisdiction and tainted with mala fides of respondent Nos..5 and 6. Petitioner submits that charge-sheet can be issued either by the appointing authority or by the Enquiry Officer, and charge-sheet has been issued under the authority of the following officers : (i) Sub Divisional Officer, Mathura (ii) Superintending Engineer, Mathura (iii) Executive Engineer, Vrindavan (iv) Enquiry Officer, Aligarh which is unjustifiable. Petitioner has contended that specific complaint was lodged against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and said respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has put their signature and further petitioner submits that sequence of events clearly demonstrate that charge-sheet has been issued at the behest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioner. Petitioner has also contended that he was lastly posted at district Mathura and disciplinary proceedings has not been initiated at district Banda. Where the petitioner has been attached, and the respondents cannot be permitted to conduct enquiry at a third place at Aligarh.
(3.) Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that sequence of events clearly reflects mala fide initiation of the proceedings as such proceedings cannot be permitted to go on, as such charge-sheet in question is liable to be quashed and further petitioner is entitled to function on the post of Office Assistant II and paid salary as well as arrears of salary from December, 2006.;