2022 (2) TMI 1065 - HC - GST

Suspension order - whether suspension should be resorted to only if the enquiry which was conducted would result in a major punishment or not? - Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline Appeal) Rules, 1999? - HELD THAT - Matter requires consideration. Sri Amit Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. He may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 7.1.2022 shall remain in abeyance. The enquiry which might have been initiated shall continue and shall be concluded as expeditiously as might be possible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appointment of petitioner as a member of the Five Member Committee
2. Satisfaction of authorities with the enquiry conducted
3. Suspension as per Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999
4. Filing of counter affidavit by the respondents
5. Continuation and conclusion of the initiated enquiry

Appointment of petitioner as a member of the Five Member Committee:
The judgment discusses the appointment of the petitioner as a member of the Five Member Committee, following an enquiry conducted by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I. The petitioner's counsel argued that if the authorities were not satisfied with the enquiry, a further enquiry could have been conducted. It was highlighted that the petitioner's involvement in the committee did not warrant major punishment, as per the proviso to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Satisfaction of authorities with the enquiry conducted:
The judgment notes that the satisfaction of the superior authorities with the enquiry conducted is crucial before resorting to suspension, especially if the outcome may result in major punishment. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the authorities being content with the enquiry process before taking any punitive actions against the petitioner.

Suspension as per Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999:
The judgment brings attention to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, which dictates that suspension should only be considered if the conducted enquiry is anticipated to lead to major punishment. This rule serves as a guideline for determining the appropriateness of suspending an individual in such disciplinary matters.

Filing of counter affidavit by the respondents:
The judgment instructs the respondents to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, allowing for a comprehensive response to the petitioner's claims and arguments. This procedural step ensures that all parties have the opportunity to present their perspectives and evidence before the court.

Continuation and conclusion of the initiated enquiry:
The judgment directs that the initiated enquiry should continue and be concluded promptly until the next date of listing. This instruction ensures that the investigative process remains active and is resolved efficiently, maintaining the integrity and timeliness of the disciplinary proceedings.