Indra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Goods And Service Tax GST Lko And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Indra Pratap Singh, a GST official, challenges an order dated 17.07.2025 placing him under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. The suspension is based on an alleged complaint from a firm partner concerning events from 2016-2017, specifically an audio clip where the petitioner is purportedly heard demanding a bribe. The petitioner argues that the order was passed without application of mind, without verifying the audio clip's genuineness, and that the allegations are stale. The State counsel acknowledged that no preliminary inquiry was explicitly indicated prior to the suspension order but contended that the serious nature of the allegations necessitated suspension pending inquiry, supported by an affidavit.

Held

The Court held that the disciplinary authority must apply its mind and record a prima facie satisfaction regarding the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent employee before passing a suspension order. This principle was enunciated by the Division Bench of the High Court in Arvind Kumar Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, relying on a Supreme Court judgment in State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to make any efforts to ascertain the genuineness of the audio clip, which formed the sole basis of the suspension. The Court found that no such efforts were made prior to issuing the impugned order, which is unsustainable as the genuineness of the audio clip was yet to be tested. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 was quashed. The disciplinary authority was granted liberty to pass a fresh order only after recording prima facie satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the audio clip.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disciplinary authority applied its mind and recorded a prima facie satisfaction regarding the petitioner's guilt before passing the suspension order, as required by law? 2. Whether the suspension order, based solely on an unverified audio clip, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order was passed without application of mind and without determining the veracity or genuineness of the alleged audio clip. The allegations are stale. The disciplinary authority is not automatically required to suspend an employee on any complaint without applying its mind. Respondent's arguments: The allegations are serious, and suspension was required in contemplation of inquiry. The complaint was duly supported by an affidavit. While not explicitly stating a preliminary inquiry, the State counsel submitted that the seriousness of allegations warranted suspension.