news details |
|
|
| Suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 07- The Jammu and Kashmir High Court High Court today ruled that suspension, pending enquiry, is no punishment.
This ruling was given by Justice Nirmal Singh in a petition filed by Incharge Assistant Director CADP Udhampur challenging his suspension order. Justice Singh further observed, suspension pending enquiry, is not a punishment and no interference can be made as it does not affect the rights of the suspended employee.
After hearing senior Advocate Sunil Sethi with Advocate Veenu Gupta appearing for the petitioner and Deputy Advocate General Vinod Bakshi appearing for the State and Advocate BS Salathia for the private respondents, Justice Singh observed that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, suspension being not a punishment and the employer having inherent power to suspend an employee while enquiry is pending, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard. This Court can only interfere in case the order of suspension has been passed by an incompetent authority or the same has been passed with malafide intention. The petitioner has not made any assertion in this regard nor has the officer, who has passed the order of suspension, been imp- leaded as party respondent. In this view there is no merit in the petition in which petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order. The Court dismissed the petition whereby the petitioner has also challenged his transfer order. The court observed that the transfer order was passed by the competent authority before the order of suspension came to be passed against the petitioner. The respondents after passing the suspension order has rightly passed the order of attachment of the petitioner and therefore, the petition challenging transfer order having been rendered in fructuous is dismissed. Court directed the respondents to take further appropriate steps in accordance with law. It is however observed that the enquiry, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of three months.
Following his non cooperation with the Vigilance Organization team that conducted a
surprise check of kerosene oil depots in Udhampur district a Departmental Enquiry
against officials including the petitioner was ordered by Deputy Director Supplies vide a
communication dated June 6, 2009. The petitioner had paid Rs 1, 09,861 in
excess to private transporters as verified from the accounts furnished for the month of
February, 2009 and the same was required to be recovered. The petitioner who was
transferred on June 9, 2009 and directed to report to Director CADP Jammu failed to
comply with the order and remained on unauthorized absence. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner came to be suspended. So far as the plea of the petitioner
that he has been suspended due to filling of connected petition in the High Court, this was
denied by the respondents. The petitioner also challenged his premature transfer in which
the High Court on June 18, 2009 vide interim order directed the respondents to maintain
status-quo regarding petitioner’s posting. In the petition it was stated by the petitioner
that he is going to retire in December, 2009 and placed on record office order dated
March 10, 2008 whereby the sanction was accorded to the retirement on superannuation
of petitioner along with other employees of the CAPD. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
