Nandan Singh Khati vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 01.01.2011, passed by Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension.

Brief facts, of the case, are that the writ Petitioner Nandan Singh Khati is a Executive Engineer with the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. It appears that South Asian Federation Winter Games were scheduled to be held in the month of February 2011. The impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 of the Power Corporation shows that the writ Petitioner was placed under suspension as due to the low voltage in Auli Area, certain equipments were got damaged. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the arrangements of electricity were not found sufficient to hold the games.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that neither there is any charge of embezzlement nor there is any allegation relating to the integrity of the officer. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents which indicates that the Secretary (Energy) Government of Uttarakhand wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 2 expressing dissatisfaction on the arrangements of the electricity in Auli. Said document dated 30.12.2010, itself shows that Director of the Power Corporation himself told the the Secretary (Energy) Government of Uttarakhand, that it is not possible to provide from 10:00 p.m., to 6:00 a.m., 440 volts of electricity continuously. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that when the Superior Officer to the Petitioner himself says that it was practically not possible to provide 440 volts of electricity, the Petitioner cannot be faulted with. In the last but one para the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, in letter dated 30.12.2010, addressed to Respondent No. 2 says that he has felt personally insulted as the 440 volts of electricity is not being maintained. Clause (1) of the last para of the aforesaid letter further shows that it was directed by the Government that Petitioner be suspended, and within three days finding be given as to the punishment.

Admittedly, till now, even the charge sheet does not appear to have been served on the Petitioner, nor any Inquiry Officer is appointed. The matter does not pertain to embezzlement or question of integrity of the Petitioner nor it relates to blatant defiance of any specific direction.

Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, in the above circumstances, we are of the view that the writ Petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for a indefinite period. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.01.2011, passed by Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the Respondents may proceed with the inquiry, and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.