Latest News
Back
Document:
Suspension order cannot be passed during pendency of preliminary inquiry: Allahabad High Court quashes suspension of Covid infected employee
A single-judge Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar set aside the suspension order and held that since the preliminary inquiry is still pending, the suspension order cannot be sustained. It is a settled legal position that a suspension order cannot be passed during the pendency of a preliminary inquiry, the Allahabad Court recently said setting aside an order of suspension passed against a COVID infected employee (Gaurav Bansal v. State of UP & Ors).
"It is apparent that the legal position is settled vide judgment and order dated September 3, 2013, passed in Chandra Prakash SI v. State of UP that a suspension order can not be passed during the pendency of a preliminary inquiry. The aforesaid judgment has been passed relying on a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Raj Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [2010 (10) ADJ 24]," the Court said.
The case of the petitioner was that on April 3, he had availed three days' casual leave on April 3, 2021. He, however, tested positive for COVID on April 7 could not report back for duties. This was reported to the concerned authorities by his brother through speed post accompanied by the Covid report.
On May 2, the petitioner tested negative and the very next day i.e on May 3, he reported for duty. He was, however, placed under suspension by an order dated May 5, 2021, in contemplation of preliminary inquiry.
On the basis of the above and relying on the judgment and order passed in Writ-A No.53895 of 2013; Chandra Prakash S.I. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been suspended on a nonexisting ground before completion of the preliminary inquiry which could not be done. Considering the aforesaid judgment this Court had also quashed the suspension order in the case of Nizamuddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No.6600 (S/S) of 2015. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal position and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submitted that the liberty may be granted to pass a fresh order after completion of the preliminary inquiry. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that the legal position is settled vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2013 passed in Writ-A No.53895 of 2013 that a suspension order can not be passed during the pendency of a preliminary inquiry. The aforesaid judgment has been passed relying on a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Raj Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2010 (10) ADJ 246.
The Court, however, ruled that such the suspension, before completing the preliminary inquiry, cannot be sustained. It, therefore, quashed the suspension order. The Court, however, clarified that it is open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order after receipt of the report of preliminary inquiry as per law. In view of the settled position and the facts before the Court, the order of suspension dated 29.04.2021 contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition can not be sustained in the eyes of law, and the same is accordingly quashed. It is, however, open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order after receipt of the report of preliminary inquiry as per law. The consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Document:
