Allahabad High Court
RAJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The intra‑court appeal is dismissed, upholding the lower court’s order that the suspension stands but will be automatically revoked if disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two months.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an intra‑court appeal challenging a suspension order dated 17‑02‑2026 imposed on Rajesh Kumar, a employee of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation. The appellant argued that the suspension violated Rule 4 of the Corporation’s Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 2020, and that the delay in filing the writ petition should bar relief. The court noted the appellant’s own delay in filing the petition and the pending disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing that the lower court’s order provided that the suspension would automatically be revoked if the proceedings were not concluded within two months. The court held that the issues of charge severity and vagueness could not be decided ex parte and that the petitioner’s right to documents would be satisfied. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the lower court’s order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order violates Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020.
- Whether the appellant's delay in approaching the writ court bars relief.
- Whether the seriousness of the charges and potential for major penalty can be determined ex parte.
- Whether the automatic revocation clause after two months is valid.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to copies of documents and witness list.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- delay
- laches
- Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation
- Rule 4
- automatic revocation
- writ petition
- intra-court appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1113 of 2026
Rajesh Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Adarsh Bhushan, C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Having heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2
and learned Standing Counsel for the State, we are not inclined to offer
any interference in the order of the learned single judge dated 31.08.2026
in Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another, 2026:AHC:183221.
The suspension order is dated 17.02.2026. It narrates occurrences that
definitely may have called for full-fledged disciplinary proceedings. The
charge-sheet itself has been issued to the petitioner on 13.04.2026
narrating five charges.
2. At the stage of hearing, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the
Corporation has heavily relied on charge no.1 read with the evidence in
the shape of an audio recording to submit that serious allegations of
corruption have been leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner is
alleged to have demanded bribe to be paid to him in lieu of favour. He is
also alleged to have threatened the employees with penal consequences if
his demands were not satisfied.
3. Third, it has been emphasized, against two months time granted by the
learned single judge and only after the order had been passed, the
petitioner first filed his reply to the charge-sheet on 02.09.2026. The
proceedings are underway. That fact has not been disclosed even in this
SPLA No. 1113 of 2026
2
intra-Court appeal proceeding.
4. Last, it has been emphasized, the Corporation is making best efforts to
complete the proceedings within limited time granted by the learned
single judge. Thus, it has been assured, subject to the petitioner
cooperating in the disciplinary proceeding, the same may be concluded by
31.10.2026. In the event of proceedings remaining pending, beyond two
months, the right of the petitioner has been protected inasmuch as, at that
stage, the suspension order would stand revoked automatically.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 of
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 2020, read with its proviso has been violated, does
not merit acceptance, at this stage. First, there was delay on part of the
petitioner in approaching the writ Court. Against suspension order dated
17.02.2026, writ petition was filed in August 2026. That too, well after
service of the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2026. Second, the issue whether
the charge may involve award of major penalty may not be decided ex-
parte. For that purpose, affidavits would have to be exchanged before any
conclusion is reached.
6. Keeping in mind the above, learned single judge has fully protected the
petitioner by observing that if the disciplinary proceeding are not
concluded within two months, the suspension order would stand revoked,
automatically.
7. In that view of the matter, we find no error in principle in the order
passed in favour of the petitioner, in the present case. On one hand, there
was delay/laches on part of the petitioner in approaching the writ Court,
and, on the other, his interest has been protected by providing for time
bound conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding within a wholly
reasonable period of two months. Also, we observe, it would be
SPLA No. 1113 of 2026
3
premature to reach a conclusion that the charges leveled against the
petitioner are such as may never lead to the award of a major punishment.
To the extent the charge-sheet is not under challenge, no issue of
vagueness of charge, etc., may be examined in these proceedings.
8. Insofar as the other prayer has been made with respect to providing
copies of documents relied against the petitioner and list of witnesses,
Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Corporation assures the
Court that the same would be available to the petitioner at least two days
before the next date fixed in the proceedings.
8. In view of the above, present intra-Court appeal stands disposed of.
September 29, 2026
Prakhar
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…