IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.566 of 2009 Date of decision : June 18, 2010 Sat Narayan Gautam and another …Petitioners. Versus Himachal Khadi Ashram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners, assailing the order dated 31st July, 2009, Annexure P-16, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court NO.4, Shimla, and order dated 15th September, 2009, Annexure P-18, of learned District Judge, by which the appeal filed against the aforesaid order Annexure P-16 has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs-petitioners are the employees of Himachal Khadi Ashram, impleaded as respondent No.1 though its Secretary. They have been in service of respondent No.1 for the last more than 30 years. In March, 2009, a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… complaint Annexure P-4 was made by 31 employees of respondent No.1 to Secretary Khadi Ashram, Panipat, which is alleged to be the Parent Organization of respondent No.1, in which allegations of misconduct and corruption were leveled against the Secretary of respondent No.1, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2 in his individual capacity also. Thereafter, orders of suspension Annexure P-11 were passed against the petitioners. They were suspended from service, for allegedly indulging in activities, which amounted to criticism of the policies of higher functionaries of respondent No.1 and making baseless and unfounded allegations against the management of respondent No.1 and also for neglecting their duties. 3. Petitioners have filed a suit seeking revocation of their suspension orders and for declaring the aforesaid orders of suspension as illegal. They also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for issuance of temporary injunction, directing respondents No.1 and 2 to revoke the suspension orders. Their prayer was opposed by respondents No.1 and 2. Learned trial Court dismissed the application. Appeal filed against the order of dismissal of application has been dismissed by the District Judge, vide order Annexure P-18. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 5. Submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the orders are malafide and the malafide is writ large on the orders Annexure P-11 themselves. 6. I have been taken through the suspension orders. First three paragraphs of order Annexure P-11, which pertain to suspension of petitioner Satya Narayan Gautam, read that he had taken leave from 21st April, 2009 to 25th April, 2009, with the intention of disrupting the proper functioning of respondent No.1, he had made false and unfounded allegations against the management of respondent No.1 and had not carried out the inspection of certain Sub Centres of Khadi Ashram, falling within his jurisdiction. However, the concluding paragraph records that he is guilty of criticizing the policies of superior functionaries of respondent No.1, has made unfounded allegations against the management and has neglected his duties. 7. In the case of the other petitioner, allegations contained in the first three paragraphs are that he had not complied with the orders of his transfer from Devinagar to Kinnaur, which orders were issued on 5th February, 2009, had not vacated his residence at Devinagar, despite order dated 17th April, 2009 and subsequent order dated 9th May, 2009, had taken leave from 21st April, 2009 to 23rd April, 2009 to disrupt the smooth functioning of the Centres of respondent No.1 and had made false allegations against the management of respondent No.1. …4… 8. The aforesaid action of suspension of the two petitioners was taken only after complaint Annexure P-4, signed by 31 employees of respondent No.1, had been lodged with “parent organization” of respondent No.1. The present petitioners are amongst those 31 employees, who signed complaint Annexure P-4. In Annexure P-4, serious allegations of misconduct and corruption had been leveled against the Secretary of respondent No.1. Orders of suspension also show that one of the grounds for suspension is the making of the allegations. Respondent No.2 has himself given the finding in suspension orders that the allegations are unfounded and false. 9. All the aforesaid facts and the circumstances do, prima facie, suggest that the action of suspension of the petitioners, who have been in service for more than 30 years, is not bonafide. The petitioners have, thus, a prima face case and balance of convenience is also in their favour, because they have been in service for more than 30 years and are dependent for their livelihood on their salary. They will be put to irreparable loss, because of diminution in their income, on account of suspension, in case temporary injunction is not granted. 10. For the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed, impugned orders of trial Court and the first Appellate Court are set aside, application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the petitioners, is allowed and it is ordered that during the pendency of the Civil Suit, …5… impugned orders of suspension Annexure P-11 shall not be given effect to. However, it is made clear that respondent No.1, being the employer of the petitioners, may proceed with the proposed departmental action against the petitioners for their alleged acts of misconduct. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 18, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J