Singh Pratap Dev vs State of U.P.

Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 22.12.2011.

Sri K.K. Singh, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as District Minority and Welfare Officer, Lucknow. On 19.11.2011, the petitioner has passed an order for single operation of accounts pertaining to the Madarsa, Darul Ulum Warsia, Ujarion, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow without obtaining necessary approval from the Government. So, the Government has passed the impugned order for suspension and attached the petitioner with the Collectrate Office at Hardoi. He further submits that the Principal Mohd. Shirajul Haq lodged a complaint on 06.07.2011 before the District Magistrate, Lucknow regarding mis-management of the Madarsa, harassment of teaching and non-teaching staff, appointment of near relatives on various posts by the Manager Sri Shariful Hasan and misuse of the public money. The salary bills for the period of May 2011 and October 2011 were submitted under the joint signatures of the Principal and the Manager before the petitioner for payment of salary in which the persons, who were near relative of the Manager, have been shown as Instructor and their salary was wrongly claimed. In these circumstances, the petitioner has passed the order for single operation. He also submits that the impugned order is malafide and the same may kindly be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel admits that a complaint was lodged against the Manager Sri Shariful Hasan by the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Madarsa, but before passing an order for single operation account, the necessary permission was required by the petitioner as per Govt. Order dated 30.07.2011 and the same was not obtained. Lastly, he justified the impugned order.

After hearing both the parties at length and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that there was a dispute between the Principal and Manager pertaining to the activities of Madarsa. The petitioner has made several attempts for compromise between the parties as appeared from the letter dated 03.10.2011 (Annexure no.10). The petitioner before passing the order for single operation of the account has written to the State Government on 22.09.2011 and the same was followed by the several reminders dated 30.10.2011, 25.10.2011 and 14.11.2011. The petitioner made a request to the State Government to grant the approval or to issue guidelines, but the same was never issued by the Government.

In these circumstances, the impugned order appears malafide as the petitioner did his best to obtain the approval from the State Government, but the same was not given. The action on the part of the petitioner appears bonafide. So, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 and revoked impugned suspension order. However, the State would be at liberty to conduct the enquiry, if need be.

Further, from the record, it appears that there is a serious dispute in the Madarsa and continuation of the petitioner on the post is not desirable as he has become a controversial officer. So, opposite party is directed to transfer him to another suitable place at the earliest.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.