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.