Pradeep Kumar Sinha vs Superintending Engineer,Gorakhpur and Others

Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J.—The only grievance raised in the instant writ petition by the petitioner is that petitioner has been placed under order of suspension, vide order, dated October 17, 1994 but without issuing any chargesheet at subsequent period, till today, i.e. March 8, 1995.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order itself shows nonapplication of mind and the order of suspension has not been passed exactly in accordance with the Rule 49A of the U, P. Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.

I have perused the impugned order of suspension. It does not appear for the aforesaid order that the petitioner has been at all chargesheeted, or, it is a composite order of chargesheet and suspension. So per se, the said order cannot be justified as no subsequent chargesheet has been issued during the subsequent period.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is of the view that it may be in the mind of the respondents to frame chargesheet and serve upon the petitioner, at the subsequent stage, and, it is not high time to say that chargesheet has not been submitted and the petitioner has been unnecessarily placed under order of suspension.

Having heard the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties" I am of the view that if the respondent authorities do not serve chargesheet within a reasonable period, say within a period of one month from this date the order of suspension, dated October 17, 1994 will come to an end, and. petitioner will be entitled to resume his duties, and accordingly he will be entitled to full wages during the period of suspension till resumption of the duties.

With the aforesaid direction writ petition is disposed of finally. Morever, there shall be no order as to cost.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel on payment of usual charge.