# Satya Prakash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-10
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 961 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43035
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri
Udai
Chandani,
Sri
Amrit
Raj
Chaurasiya
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
House rent allowance by Constable and
Head
Constables-staying
in

## Text

1448
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Special Appeal No. 961 of 2014
Satya Prakash Chaudhary
...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Jai Krishna Tiwari, Sri Radha Kant
Ojha
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Suspensionon demand of illegal gratification from the
attendant
of
emergency
patientconsidering gravity of charges-Single Judge
declined to interfere-held-view taken by
Single Judge not sustainable-gravity of
charges can not take way the Rule of lawwhere suspension as major of punishmentprinciple of Natural Justice can not be
denied-petition allowed-suspension
order
quashed.
Held: Para-5
In either view of the matter, the order of
suspension that was challenged before the
learned Single Judge was unsustainable in
view of the flaw which has been noticed
above. The learned Single Judge declined
to entertain the petition under Article 226
of the Constitution, having due regard to
the gravity of charge against the appellant.
On this aspect, we need only observe that
irrespective of the gravity of an allegation,
the rule of law has to be observed and an
order of suspension must necessarily abide
by the fundamental principles of service
jurisprudence
as
embodied
in
the
applicable service rules.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellant had moved a writ
petition, under Article
226 of the
Constitution, challenging an order dated 9
September 2014 passed by the fifth
respondent namely, the Principal, B.R.D.
Medical College, Gorakhpur. By the order
of the fifth respondent, the appellant was
suspended on the ground that he had
demanded an illegal gratification from the
attendant of a patient in the emergency
ward. A direction has been issued to the
effect that a reference to the order of
suspension be made in the service book of
the appellant and that an adverse entry be
recorded in his character roll.
2. The learned Single Judge has
declined to interfere with the order of
suspension, having due regard to the
gravity of the charge. However, the
second
respondent-Director
General,
Medical Health Services as well as the
fifth
respondent-Principal,
B.R.D.
Medical
College,
Gorakhpur
were
directed to look into the matter and take a
decision on the issue as to who is the
authority competent to suspend the
appellant.
3. Two submissions have been urged
on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, the
order dated 9 September 2014 is not an
order
of
suspension
passed
in
contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry. If
this is an order by way of punishment, it
ought to have been proceeded by a notice
to show cause and a departmental
enquiry. Secondly, the direction to make
an entry in the service book and to record
an adverse entry in the character roll, on
the basis of the same order, would be
consequently unsustainable since the
3 All]. Satya Prakash Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1449
entire foundation is a misconduct which is
still to be proved.
4. The order which was impugned in
the proceedings before the learned Single
Judge dated 9 September 2014 proceeds to
suspend the appellant. Ex-facie the order is
not in contemplation of a departmental
proceeding. It is well settled that an order of
suspension of an employee can be of two
types. The first is where a suspension is
ordered in contemplation of a departmental
enquiry or proceeding. The second is where
a suspension is contemplated by service
rules as a punishment for misconduct. In the
present case, the impugned order does not
indicate that it is in contemplation of a
disciplinary proceeding. If the order was
intended to operate as a punishment for
misconduct, compliance of the principles of
natural justice in accordance with service
rules was necessary.
5. In either view of the matter, the
order of suspension that was challenged
before the learned Single Judge was
unsustainable in view of the flaw which
has been noticed above. The learned
Single Judge declined to entertain the
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution, having due regard to the
gravity of charge against the appellant.
On this aspect, we need only observe that
irrespective
of
the
gravity
of
an
allegation, the rule of law has to be
observed and an order of suspension must
necessarily abide by the fundamental
principles of service jurisprudence as
embodied in the applicable service rules.
6. For these reasons, we have come
to the conclusion that the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge would
warrant interference in appeal. The
special appeal is, accordingly, allowed
and the impugned judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 25
September
2014
is
set
aside.
In
consequence, the writ petition (Writ-A
No.52394 of 2014) filed by the appellant
shall stand allowed and the order passed
by the fifth respondent dated 9 September
2014 shall stand quashed and set aside.
7. However, we expressly make it
clear that this judgment will not come in
the way of the competent authority to pass
a fresh order of suspension, if it is
considered to be necessary and proper, in
contemplation
of
a
disciplinary
proceeding in accordance with law.
8.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 967 of 2014
State of U.P. & Ors.
 Appellants
Versus
Con. 840470302 Narendra Pal Singh &
Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C., S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Udai
Chandani,
Sri
Amrit
Raj
Chaurasiya
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
House rent allowance by Constable and
Head
Constables-staying
in
Barrack-