Sachin Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Secretary, Technical Education, whereby, petitioner was placed under suspension.

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that petitioner was posted as a Lecturer, Mechanical Engineering in Govt. Polytechnic, Kashipur. During his tenure, certain charges were levelled against him of extending undue benefit to his brother in evaluation of his answer sheets who was studying in K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee. An enquiry was contemplated and in contemplation of which he was placed under suspension by the impugned order.

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that petitioner was placed under suspension on 04.01.2024 and he cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period. Though, during the course of arguments, reliance was placed on the Government Order dated 23.06.2010, but the said government order nowhere helps the learned Senior Counsel in regard to the above submission.

It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that petitioner has already been inflicted with a penalty of adverse entry for the alleged breach, and therefore, he cannot be punished twice for the same charge.

Learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions available with him, refuted the above argument of awarding of adverse entry upon the petitioner on the ground of present misconduct, rather, it is submitted by him that adverse entry was awarded against petitioner in relation to certain other charge.

It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that allegations imputed against petitioner are serious enough i.e. taking answer sheet of his brother out of Evaluation Center in Kashipur, and therefore, the matter needs to be enquired into, and accordingly, an Internal Enquiry Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Principal of the Govt. Polytechnic, Pant Nagar; it is only after the report of said enquiry, petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet has been issued against him on 15.01.2024, and departmental proceedings are ongoing.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner refuted the submission made by learned State Counsel on the strength of taking this Court to page no.61 of the writ petition wherefrom it is gathered that adverse entry was award to petitioner on the infraction which is subject matter of present writ petition.

Be that as it may, the said argument is always open to the petitioner to be raised during disciplinary proceedings which are pending against him. However since charges levelled against petitioner are grave enough to warrant major penalties, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned suspension order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner be expedited and the Enquiry Officer is directed to conclude the enquiry at the earliest possible time but not later than two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

There would be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of as such.