Anil Kumar Singh v. Hidayatullah National Law University

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5169 of 2020 Anil Kumar Singh S/o Shri G. N. Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Hig-II/757, Sector-29, C.G.H.B. Colony Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Hidayatullah National Law University Through Its Registrar, Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Vice Chancellor Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Registrar Hidayatullah National Law University, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/12/2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is order of suspension Annexure P-1 dated 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent No.3.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on an earlier occasion on 06.08.2020 and respondents continued to keep him under suspension till 10.11.2020 when it was finally revoked by the respondents. According to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier order of suspension the respondents have not initiated any

disciplinary action against the petitioner in as much as not even a show cause notice or chargesheet was issued against the petitioner and now subsequent to the revocation of earlier suspension order dated 10.11.2020, on the very next date yet another order of suspension has been issued on 11.11.2020. Contention of the petitioner is that the said action on the part of the respondent is nothing but to victimize the petitioner by placing him under suspension for a continued long period of time.

3. Having heard the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that earlier order of suspension was issued under entirely different contextual background whereas the present order of suspension Annexure P-1 dated 11.11.2020 is again under entirely different factual circumstance. The respondents have given specific reasons for placing the petitioner under suspension which is well within the domain of the respondents in the backdrop of the allegations leveled in Annexure P-1.

4. Given the said facts, this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction may not find much force in interfering with the impugned order of suspension. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the authorities that is the authority who have placed the petitioner under suspension and even to the Executive Council by preferring appropriate representation against the order of suspension which on being made the respondents are expected to take appropriate decision in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field at the earliest.

5.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit