Arjun Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner is serving as a Senior Cane Development Officer in Sugar Cane Development and Sugar Industries Department of the State Government. He was given additional charge of the post of Assistant Sugar Commissioner by order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Secretary, Sugar Cane Development and Sugar Industries Department, however, by order dated 20.01.2023, charge of the post of Assistant Sugar Commissioner was given to respondent no.4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

It is contended that respondent no.4 is junior to the petitioner and is serving as Khandsari Inspector, therefore he could not have been given the additional charge of the post of Assistant Sugar Commissioner by ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel for the State, however, points out that in view of serious complaint against the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to him by the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar on 24.12.2022 and after considering his reply further inquiry was ordered on 29.12.2022. He further points out that the petitioner is not cooperating in the inquiry, therefore, the Secretary of the concerned department has passed the impugned order, whereby petitioner was relieved of the additional charge of Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the charge of the said post was given to respondent no.4. He further submits that the petitioner does not have a vested right to hold the charge of superior post and further that since petitioner’s conduct is under inquiry, therefore, petitioner’s presence in the Office of Assistant Sugar Commissioner would prejudice the ongoing inquiry.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 also adopts the submissions made by counsel for the State and submits that petitioner cannot claim any vested right to hold the additional charge of a higher post.

This Court finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. A Government servant may be given the additional charge of a higher post to meet the exigencies of work, however no one can claim a vested right to hold the charge of a higher position. In the present case, petitioner’s conduct is subject matter of inquiry and it is alleged that he is not extending cooperation in the ongoing inquiry and further his continuance as Assistant Sugar Commissioner would prejudice the inquiry.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.01.2023.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are baseless. He further submits that the Additional District Magistrate is not the competent authority to initiate any inquiry against the petitioner.

Be that as it may. Since the petitioner does not have any vested right to hold the charge of higher post, therefore any interference with the impugned order would not be warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

We are told that the post of Assistant Sugar Commissioner is lying vacant since last several years and petitioner was holding the charge of said post since 2019, we, therefore direct the Secretary, Sugar Cane Development and Sugar Industries Department, Government of Uttarakhand to initiate promotion exercise for supplying vacancy on the post of Assistant Sugar Commissioner through regular promotion, within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.