E-Paper
Court can rarely interfere in suspensions
THE ALLAHABAD High Court on Wednesday ruled that court could only interfere with suspension order in the rarest of rare cases, where it was apparently punitive or malafide in nature or without jurisdiction. The court, therefore, refused to give relief with regard to the suspension order passed against director of Government Press, Allahabad, Gurinder Singh Sethi, when nothing unwarranted was found in the suspension order, which called for Court interference.
THE ALLAHABAD High Court on Wednesday ruled that court could only interfere with suspension order in the rarest of rare cases, where it was apparently punitive or malafide in nature or without jurisdiction.
The court, therefore, refused to give relief with regard to the suspension order passed against director of Government Press, Allahabad, Gurinder Singh Sethi, when nothing unwarranted was found in the suspension order, which called for Court interference.
This judgment was given by a Division Bench comprising Justice Amitava and Justice VC Mishra after hearing the parties at length.
The petitioner Sethi had challenged the order dated July 5, by which he had been put under suspension. Admittedly, the chargesheet has already been forwarded and reply has been given by the petitioner.
The petitioner’s counsel Ravi Kant argued that the charges levelled against the petitioners cannot derive major penalties. Therefore, he should not be held up under suspension.
Appearing for the State government, Advocate General SMA Kazmi, assisted by Sanjay Goswamy, standing counsel, contended that under the relevant rules of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956, every government servant shall all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. He said charges levelled against the petitioner may not be major charges, but had a cumulative effect.
To recall, some of the charges against the petitioner arose out of illegal appointments of 27 workers. It is alleged that in spite of the direction of the government to terminate them, the petitioner had sent back the matter for the purpose of reconsideration.
The court, in view of the above arguments, did not pass any order with regard to the order of suspension, but, however, said that it will not entitle the authority to keep the inquiry pending indefinitely.
The Court, therefore, directed for concluding the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of three months and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.
