Nand Kishore Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and Shri Matwar Singh Kandari, Hon''ble Minister, Social Welfare Department

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—There is an allegation of misbehaviour by the Petitioner against the Minister of his Department. The allegation pertaining to the misbehaviour was recorded by the Minister himself. As the departmental head, the Minister also directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and to suspend him in course of the disciplinary proceedings. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Minister is the victim of the alleged abuse by the Petitioner, he is the complainant and he is also the Judge. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that there were various instances which would suggest that the Minister, for some reason or the other, did not like the Petitioner. It is also being contended that this extreme step has been taken in order to exclude the Petitioner from the panel to be prepared for inclusion of people as that of the Petitioner in the list of being appointed as I.A.S. Officers. What the Petitioner is contending may be correct and at the same time what the Hon''ble Minister has contended in his written complaint may also be correct. Whether the complaint, as made, is correct or not is required to be gone in and for that matter, it is required to ascertain the facts. The same can only be done in the departmental proceeding. We feel that since the Minister is the top most person in the Department, there is no scope for the Minister to make any complaint to the higher authority and leave the matter to the higher authority for taking appropriate action on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. We, accordingly, find no scope of interference with the Minister complaining of and at the same time directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner on the basis of the allegations made in his complaint. We, however, feel that since the Hon''ble Minister has been cited as one of the witnesses to the incident for which the charge-sheet has been issued, it would be appropriate on the part of the Government to appoint the Chief Secretary of the State as the Inquiry Officer. We, accordingly, make it clear that the Chief Secretary of the State stands appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the charge-sheet. We request the Chief Secretary of the State to conclude the inquiry within sixty days from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him. We also request the State Government to finally conclude the matter within a period of thirty days from the date of service of a copy of the inquiry report by the Chief Secretary. At this stage, we do not interfere either with the suspension order or with the charge-sheet. We, however, make it clear that inasmuch as the Petitioner stands suspended or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him, he shall not be excluded nor any step should be taken to exclude him from the panel to be prepared for the inclusion of Officers as that of the Petitioner in the I.A.S. grade until a decision is taken by the State Government in the disciplinary proceeding. Let the State Government pay to the Petitioner salaries payable to the Petitioner for the period he has not been paid as well as subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules during the period of suspension.

This disposes of the writ petition.