ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 31.5.2019, whereby petitioner's representation made for revocation of earlier order of suspension dated 13.3.2019 has been rejected and the petitioner is continued under suspension.
(2.) A perusal of the record would go to show that the petitioner's wife had lodged a first information report in case Crime No. 68 of 2015 under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Sections 147,148,323,377,498-A,504,506 and 511 I.P.C. P.S. George Town, District Allahabad. The investigation in the aforesaid case was conducted and a final report was submitted. It appears that upon a protest petition filed, petitioner was summoned but since he did not appear, non-bailable warrants were issued against him and he was incarcerated in jail from 1.6.2018 to 4.6.2018. It is for this reason that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by invoking the provisions contained in Rule-4(3) (a) of the 'U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999'. The petitioner submits that he has already been enlarged on bail. It is also stated that matrimonial dispute between petitioner and his wife is pending before different forum. Since the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail and the object of invoking the deemed suspension clause had outlived itself, as such, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 3824 of 2019 which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 11.3.2019:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Undisputedly, the solitary ground on which the petitioner has been placed under suspension is his alleged incarceration for a period of more than 48 hours in connection with Case Crime No. 78 of 2015. Before this Court, it is not disputed that in that criminal case the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail on 4 June 2018 much prior to the passing of the order impugned. Consequently, the ends of justice would merit the first respondent being commanded to consider the application which the petitioner shall now make for revocation of the order of suspension in light of the provisions of the 1999 Rules. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent states that subject to all contentions on merits being left open, the proposed application for revocation of the order of suspension shall be duly considered and disposed of in accordance with law and not later than within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above."
(3.) It is thereafter that the Addl. Chief Secretary of the department concerned has rejected petitioner's representation by the order impugned. This order refers to the provisions contained in the Rules of 1999. In para-4 it is stated that petitioner was placed under suspension and was attached to the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, but the petitioner has not joined and that a charge-sheet has also been sent to the petitioner but it could not be served on the ground that the addressee has left. It is for this reason that the petitioner's representation for revocation of suspension has been rejected.;