Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
LALJI V/S DIRECTOR, BAL VIKAS SEVA AVAM PUSTAHAR, decided on Thursday, February 4, 1993.
[ In the High Court of Allahabad, C.M.W.P. 42247 of 1992. ] 04/02/1993
Judge(s) : R.A. SHARMA
Advocate(s) : Ram Niwas Singh, V.K. Chandel.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page





#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

lalji,director,bal,vikas,seva,avam,pustahar,

  "1993 (2) LLJ 547"  







judgment - R.A. SHARMA J. (1.) Petitioner who claims to be a Junior Clerk has filed this writ petition against the order of his suspension dated April 24 1992. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the respondents have filed counter-affidavit but it is not on the record. However learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a copy of the counter-affidavit to the Court and he has also filed a rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto which shall be kept on record. (2.) In paragraphs 11 and 16of the writ petition it has been stated that no charge sheet has been given to the petitioner although more than six months have passed when the writ petition was filed. Reply to those paragraphs are contained in paragraphs 10 and 15 of the counter-affidavits; but the allegations made in the above paragraphs of the writ petition have not been denied. There is no assertion that charge sheet has been served on the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit petitioner has reiterated the allegations about non-furnishing of the charge sheet to the petitioner. (3.) From the perusal of the suspension order it is apparent that the petitioner was suspended by order dated April 24 1992 on the ground that an inquiry is contemplated against him. More than nine months have passed but the disciplinary inquiry has not been initiated against the petitioner. It has not been pointed out as to when the inquiry will be initiated against the petitioner and when charge sheet will be served on him. The averments in the counter affidavit are evasive. An employee can be suspended on the ground that inquiry is contemplated against him only when such an inquiry really is in contemplation and not in casual manner. The fact that the charge-sheet has not been served so far on the petitioner demonstrates that the impugned order of suspension was passed in a casual manner without applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is as such arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. (4.) The writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order of suspension dated April 24 1992 is quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith and he will be paid full salary and other allowances from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement. Petitioner is also entitled to special cost which I assess at Rs. 3 000/- which shall be paid by the respondents along with arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.