Court declines to interfere in absence  of material to show mala-fide exercise of power

Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Pankaj Bhatia, J., against the order of suspension whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending inquiry in terms of the powers conferred under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

Petitioner submitted that charge sheet had already been filed against the petitioner which is required to be replied. The reason why he failed to file reply was non-availability of required documents. It is to be noted that the inquiry against the alleged misconduct was pending. 

High Court observed that nothing was mentioned to show that suspension order was without jurisdiction or was mala-fide exercise of power. Hence, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of suspension. However, the respondent was directed to provide the necessary documents to the petitioner which he requires to file a reply in the disciplinary enquiry. [Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 3213, order dated 21-12-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.