Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This Court has passed order dated 15.7.2019 which is as under : "Heard Sri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Prafulla Tiwari has filed rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit, the same is taken on record. By means of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 8.3.2019. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 19.12.2018 the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 appointing Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Region, P.W.D., Gorakhpur as enquiry officer which is Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the specific indication in the order dated 19.12.2018 that the charge-sheet shall be prepared and be approved within a period of one week, no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner for about three months. He has further submitted that instead of issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner and conducting the inquiry, vide office memo dated 8.3.2019 the petitioner was placed under suspension and the suspension order reads that the inquiry officer would be the same as has been appointed vide office memo dated 19.12.2018 i.e. Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur, P.W.D., Gorakhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition on 2.7.2019 challenging the aforesaid suspension order on the ground that about four months period has passed w.e.f. 8.3.2019 no charge-sheet has been prepared and approved to the petitioner whereas the charge-sheet should have been prepared and approved within a period of seven days w.e.f. 19.12.2018 as indicated in the said order itself. Considering the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the inquiry officer has done nothing pursuant to the office memo dated 19.12.2018 whereby he was appointed inquiry officer and was directed to prepare the charge-sheet within a period of one week. However, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has got no specific instructions to that effect. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this Court has passed order dated 4.7.2019 seeking instructions from the State as to whether the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner or not, the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 6.7.2019 which has been enclosed with short counter affidavit as Annexure- S.C.A.-3. The charge-sheet is dated 5.7.2019. This Court is unable to comprehend as to why no charge-sheet was provided to the petitioner pursuant to the office memo dated 19.12.2018 wherein it has been categorically indicated that the charge-sheet should be prepared within seven daysand after getting it approved from the competent authority shall be served to the petitioner after getting it approved from the competent authority. This is settled law that the inquiry against the employee might have been conducted and concluded even without placing him under suspension and the purpose of suspension is to keep the employee away from the place where the alleged incident took place for which the inquiry is to be conducted. Even if the employee has been placed under suspension, the charge-sheet should be served upon him with promptness. In the present case since the competent authority was conscious about this fact which has been indicated in the order dated 19.12.2018 that charge-sheet should be prepared within one week. List this case on 17.7.2019 in the Additional Cause List to enable learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek complete instructions from the authorities as to what happened after issuance of office memo dated 19.12.2018 and also as to why the charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been prepared within a period of one week as indicated in that order. Further, as to why the charge-sheet has not been served upon the petitioner with promptness even after placing him under suspension on 8.3.2019 and why the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner when this Court has called upon the specific instructions to that effect."
(3.) In compliance of the aforesaid order learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the instruction letter dated 17.7.2019 preferred by one Sri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, Special Secretary, Department of Public Works addressing to the office of Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow enclosing therewith some correspondences being made by the Department relating to the present issue, same is taken on record.;