SUBASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-334
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 08,2005

SUBASH CHAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

V.M.SAHAI,J. - (1.)FEELING aggrieved against the order dated 21.7.2003 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) passed by State Government, whereby while working on the post of Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of the Government the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition.
(2.)THE facts in brief have material bearing on the question in controversy involved in the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government on 11.2.1991 after due selection by U.P. Public Service Commission. During the service he was transferred at different places from time to time in the period from July 1997 to 9.7.2003. On 30.6.2003 the petitioner was transferred from Mobile Unit Azamgarh and posted as Veterinary Officer, Sahaar, district Auraiya. In pursuance of which he was relieved from Azamgarh on 9.7.2003 and joined at the office of Chief Veterinary Officer, Auraiya/Etawah on 10.7.2003. According to the petitioner, his work and conduct through out his service career has been found fully satisfactory and no cause of complaint has ever been arisen against his work and conduct during the aforesaid period. Surprisingly enough he was placed under suspension by the Government vide order dated 21.7.2003 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him on the allegation of defiance of order of superiors and working in arbitrary manner, failure to achieve target of prescribed policies and not working be fitting to the post inasmuch as using of vulgar language against the other officials while working as Veterinary Officer, Bachat Ekai, Azamgarh. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of suspension mainly on the ground that allegations mentioned in the impugned order are vague and not serious warranting impugned action taken against him.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State wherein mainly in para 6, 9 and 12 an attempt has been made to justify impugned state action taken against the petitioner by precisely making averment that during the posting of petitioner in Azamgarh Mobile Unit there were a lot of complaints regarding arbitrary functioning and disobeying the orders of superior officers inasmuch as allegations against the petitioner of misbehaviour with officials and also with the superior officers of the department. For ready reference para 6,9,12 of counter affidavit is quoted as under:-

"6. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11 of the writ petition it is stated that there are many complaints against the petitioner. It is further stated that during the posting of the petitioner at Azamgarh Mobile Unit there were lot of complaints regarding irregular functioning and not obeying the orders of the superior officers against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner also used to misbehave the officials, and consequently disciplinary proceeding was directed to be initiated against the petitioner and he was also placed under suspension as will be evident from annexure-5 of the writ petition. 9. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was transferred from Mobile Unit, Azamgarh to Sahar Auraiya as per Scheme of the State Government in Public Interest. However, his suspension has been done as he misbehaved his superior officers, not obeyed the orders of his superior officers and also for misbehaving the officials. 12. That the contents of paragraphs 20,21,22 and 23 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. In reply it is submitted that work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and as such adverse entry was made in his character roll for the year 2001-02. It is further stated that as there were lot of complaints against the petitioner and his behaviour was also not found satisfactory, consequently he was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry is being initiated against him. It is further stated that under the departmental proceeding the charge sheet will be served against him at an early date. "

(3.)WE have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records. Since the necessary affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and case was ripped for final disposal, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, therefore, the case has been heard for final disposal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.