Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 11, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471142

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/471142
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar, J.
Decided On: Mar 11, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 10413 of 2003
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - suspension - petitioner challenging his suspension - suspension Order passed pending enquiry - nothing invalid in suspension but enquiry to be conducted expeditiously. - - Here also the decisions of Meera Tiwari as well as Megha Singh (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. ...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surendra Singh

Advocate S.K. Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(3)AWC2169

Excerpt

service - suspension - petitioner challenging his suspension - suspension order passed pending enquiry - nothing invalid in suspension but enquiry to be conducted expeditiously. - - here also the decisions of meera tiwari as well as megha singh (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. , 2000 (1) awc 35. the facts of that case clearly demonstrate that in that decision. division bench was considering the case where charge-sheet as well as suspension order were quashed by this court......2057, has argued that in the impugned order of suspension, there is no recital that any enquiry is in contemplation or pending. a perusal of the aforesaid judgment will demonstrate that the division bench in the aforesaid judgment was of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending whereas in the present case the opening sentence of the impugned order itself demonstrates that the disciplinary enquiry is contemplated. 3. in this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the decision of the learned single judge passed in civil misc. writ petition no. 4732 of 2003, megha singh v. state of u. p. and ors., decided on 29th january, 2003 wherein this court relying upon the decision of meera tiwari (supra) quashed the order of suspension on the ground that the charges are vague. here also the decisions of meera tiwari as well as megha singh (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the division bench decision of this court in syed qaisar ali v. waqfs commissioner, uttar pradesh, lucknow and ors., 2000 (1) awc 35. the facts of that case clearly demonstrate that in that decision. division bench was considering the case where charge-sheet as well as suspension order were quashed by this court. in this view of the matter, this decision will not apply to the case of the petitioner. in a recent decision of the division bench of this court in r. p. pandey v. managing director, v. p. jal nigam, lucknow and ors., 2002 (96) flr 645, this court has held that the suspension is not a punishment. 5. however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the respondents will expedite the enquiry. 6. with the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anjani Kumar, J.

The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 19th February, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad, whereby the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. Chief Medical Officer and Ors., 2001 (2) AWC 1506 : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, has argued that in the impugned order of suspension, there is no recital that any enquiry is in contemplation or pending. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment will demonstrate that the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment was of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending whereas in the present case the opening sentence of the impugned order itself demonstrates that the disciplinary enquiry is contemplated.

3. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the decision of the learned single Judge passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4732 of 2003, Megha Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 29th January, 2003 wherein this Court relying upon the decision of Meera Tiwari (supra) quashed the order of suspension on the ground that the charges are vague. Here also the decisions of Meera Tiwari as well as Megha Singh (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Syed Qaisar Ali v. Waqfs Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors., 2000 (1) AWC 35. The facts of that case clearly demonstrate that in that decision. Division Bench was considering the case where charge-sheet as well as suspension order were quashed by this Court. In this view of the matter, this decision will not apply to the case of the petitioner. In a recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R. P. Pandey v. Managing Director, V. P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and Ors., 2002 (96) FLR 645, this Court has held that the suspension is not a punishment.

5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expected that the respondents will expedite the enquiry.

6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Anjani Kumar, J.

Service