# Shyam Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 835
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-08-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34193 of 2008
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyam-singh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41238
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri G.K. Gingh
Sri C.K. Parekh
Sri M.C. Dwivedi
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advocate General,
S.C.

U.P. Govt. Servant Rules 1999-Rule 4
(1)-Suspension-on the basis of news
paper-without objective considerationNo serious charges which warrant major
punishment- order vitiated.

Held: Para 8 & 9

In the present case, we do not find that
the Competent Authority has made any
objective consideration of the material
on record, or has arrived at a conclusion
that the charges against the petitioner
are so serious as are likely to result in
imposition of major penalty against the
petitioner.

Unless the Competent Authority arrives
at
such
a
conclusion
on
objective
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
836
consideration of the material on record
for the reasons to be recorded, the
suspension
order
passed
by
the
Competent Authority would be vitiated.
Case law discussed:
2007 (4) A.W.C. 4163

## Text

3 All] Shyam Singh Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
835
clerk, who was supposed to maintain the
register. His version has not been taken as
to why the register was not being
maintained, and is in loose scattered
sheets.

8. It is also to be noticed that this
register was only upto the March, 2006
while the contemner took the charge on
8.2.2007 when the petitioner got a search
made in the office, the register was
discovered, and he duly produced the
same before the Court in the condition in
which, it was found, if there was any
dishonest intention on the part of the
contemner, he would have not laid the
register before the Court, at all.

9. As stated above, in the
circumstances, the register was in such a
state, could have been disclosed by the
clerk, who was maintaining the register
and his explanation has not been obtained,
and it cannot, therefore, be said as to how
and why the register was in such a state
and why proceedings subsequent to
March,:2006 were not recorded, in the
register.

10. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, it would not be fair to hold
the contemner guilty of the charges
levelled against him, and he deserves
exoneration.

11. Contempt is discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34193 of 2008

Shyam Singh Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri V.K. Srivastava
Sri Kashif Zaidi
Sri A.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri G.K. Gingh
Sri C.K. Parekh
Sri M.C. Dwivedi
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh
Advocate General,
S.C.

U.P. Govt. Servant Rules 1999-Rule 4
(1)-Suspension-on the basis of news
paper-without objective considerationNo serious charges which warrant major
punishment- order vitiated.

Held: Para 8 & 9

In the present case, we do not find that
the Competent Authority has made any
objective consideration of the material
on record, or has arrived at a conclusion
that the charges against the petitioner
are so serious as are likely to result in
imposition of major penalty against the
petitioner.

Unless the Competent Authority arrives
at
such
a
conclusion
on
objective
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
836
consideration of the material on record
for the reasons to be recorded, the
suspension
order
passed
by
the
Competent Authority would be vitiated.
Case law discussed:
2007 (4) A.W.C. 4163

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. The present Writ Petition has
been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying
for quashing the order dated 7th July,
2008 (Annexure No.19 to the Writ
Petition) passed by the respondent No.3,
whereby the petitioner has been placed
under suspension.

2. Pursuant to our orders dated 21-72008, 5-8-2008 and 13-8-2008, various
affidavits have been filed on record by
both the sides. The matter is being
disposed of finally at this stage itself with
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.

3. We have heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.

In our order dated 13-8-2008, we,
inter-alia, directed as under:

"The Appointment Secretary, U.P.
Government in his affidavit will also
explain as to whether the requirements of
the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4
of the U.P. Government Servant Rules,
1999 were complied with by making
objective consideration before passing the
impugned suspension order dated 7-72008. The Appointment Secretary, U.P.
Government will further state as to what
material was before him on the objective
consideration of which he exercised his
power of suspension, and such material
be also filed alongwith his affidavit."

4. The averments in regard to the
aforesaid direction are contained in
paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the
Appointment Secretary -Anoop Chandra
Pandey, sworn on 18-8-2008.

5. From the material filed along with
the
Affidavit
of
the
Appointment
Secretary-Sri Anoop Chandra Pandey, it
is clear that before the Appointment
Secretary as well as the Competent
Authority only the letter of the District
Magistrate dated 30-6-2008, the letter of
the District Magistrate dated 28-6-2008
and the reply of the petitioner dated 29-62008 and a newspaper cutting were
available which were forwarded by Sri S.
R. Lakha, Principal Secretary, Nagar
Vikas Anubhag-7, U.P., Lucknow with
his letter dated 2-7-2008.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid
letters and the newspaper cutting, the
competent authority has suspended the
petitioner. There is no material on record
which has been filed before us to
demonstrate
that
any
objective
consideration has been made by the
Competent Authority prior to passing the
impugned suspension order as required by
the first proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 4
of
The
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
which has been considered by a Division
Bench of this Court in Dr. Arvind
Kumar Ram Vs. State of U.P. and
others
(Civil
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.35923 of 2007), decided on 6-9-2007,
since reported in 2007 (4) A.W.C. 4163.

7. The Division Bench has held that
the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4
3 All] Azad @ Azad Khan V. State of U.P. and others
837
is mandatory and suspension should be an
exception, and the Authority competent to
suspend the employee must apply its mind
to the material on record, and after
objectively considering such material, the
Authority should arrive at a conclusion
and record his reasons that charges
against the employee are so serious as are
likely to warrant imposition of major
penalty.

8. In the present case, we do not find
that the Competent Authority has made
any
objective
consideration
of
the
material on record, or has arrived at a
conclusion that the charges against the
petitioner are so serious as are likely to
result in imposition of major penalty
against the petitioner.

9. Unless the Competent Authority
arrives at such a conclusion on objective
consideration of the material on record for
the reasons to be recorded, the suspension
order passed by the Competent Authority
would be vitiated.

10. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the impugned suspension
order cannot be sustained.

11. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
suspension order dated 7th July, 2008
(Annexure 19 to the Writ Petition) is
quashed.

12. However, the State Government
is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry
against the petitioner in accordance with
law.

13. Before parting with the case we
may add that even though, affidavits have
been filed by the petitioner as well as by
the respondents on the question of
malafides as well as the merits of the case
but we have refrained from going into the
question of malafides or the merits of the
case as it may affect the interest of either
of the parties in the enquiry proceedings.

14. We order accordingly.

Parties shall bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE S.N.H. ZAIDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15254 of
2008

Azad alias Azad Khan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee
Sri Md. Abrar Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Singh
A.G.A.

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Quashing
of F.I.R.-offence under Section 379/411
IPC readwith Rule 57 and 70 of U.P.
Mines and Mineral Rules (Concession)
Rules 1963-challanged on the ground
without prior permission of Magistrate
police can not go with investigationheld-since
offences
both
categories
emanate from integrated facts-police not
prevented
from
investigation-No
interference
called
far-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para 14