Allahabad High Court
KISHAN SWAROOPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A suspension order cannot be confirmed where the alleged misconduct does not attract a major penalty and the employee’s continued service does not jeopardize the fairness of the domestic inquiry.
Summary
The appellant, a Junior Engineer of the Distribution Corporation, was suspended on 19‑Feb‑2026 for alleged negligence without a prior inquiry. He challenged the suspension, arguing that the charges were minor, did not warrant a major penalty, and that his continued service would not prejudice the fairness of the pending domestic inquiry. The single judge had ordered the suspension to remain in abeyance pending a charge‑sheet, but the appellate court found that the judge failed to consider the lack of serious allegations and the absence of any risk to the inquiry’s integrity. The High Court held that where no major penalty is likely and the inquiry can proceed fairly with the employee in service, the suspension cannot be confirmed. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the suspension order, directing the appellant to continue participating in the inquiry, which should be concluded within 60 days, and disposed of the special appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for confirming a service suspension when the alleged misconduct does not attract a major penalty?
- Does the continuation of service by the suspended employee prejudice the fairness and completeness of a domestic inquiry?
Subjects
- suspension
- domestic inquiry
- service law
- administrative law
- reinstatement
- back wages
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 413 of 2026
Kishan Swaroop
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manu Ghildyal, Vinay Kumar
Singh
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the distribution corporation
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order of learned single judge dated
23.3.2026 passed in Kishan Swaroop v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
2026:AHC:58949. For ready reference the consideration offered by the
learned single is quoted below :
"2. At this stage, Court finds that impugned suspension order dated
19.2.2026 does not contemplate any inquiry, therefore, in case, no
charge-sheet is filed within a period of two weeks from today, impugned
suspension order shall be kept in abeyance subject to outcome of inquiry
if any.
3. At this Stage Court takes note of an order passed in Writ-A No.3459 of
2026, therefore, respondents are under legal obligation to take a
conscious decision of submitting a charge-sheet for consideration as to
whether allegations made in suspension order would invite misconduct or
not."
3. Submission is, the petitioner is a Junior Engineer serving the
Distribution Corporation. For a simple breakdown not attributable to any
explicit or implied act of the petitioner, he was suspended vide impugned
order dated 19.2.2026.
SPLA No. 413 of 2026
2
4. Even if it is assumed (without conceding), that the fact allegations
made may be correct, those may never result in a major penalty. No other
fact and circumstance have been shown to exist that there is any risk to
the fairness and completeness of the inquiry, if such inquiry is continued
while the petitioner's services remain intact.
5. To the extent, the learned single judge has failed to notice the above
factors and disposed of the writ petition with a simple direction that the
inquiry proceeding may be concluded, an error on principle has crept in
the order of the learned single judge.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the distribution corporation has
placed on record charge-sheet dated 8.4.2026 issued to the petitioner. It
has been marked as 'X' and retained on record. Perusal of the charge-sheet
reveals, three charges have been levelled against the original petitioner/
appellant, each involving simple act of negligence with respect to his
supervisory powers over linesmen etc. They refer to breakdown of two
transformers without giving detail of the date when such breakdown may
have been suffered and without making any further allegation of role
played or loss suffered. The third charge is also pertaining to some
negligence with respect to maintenance and compliance of directions
issued.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, to the extent, at present it could not be established that the charges
levelled may lead to imposition of major penalty and further to the extent
there is no allegation of risk to the fairness and completeness of the
domestic inquiry if the petitioner remains in service during the inquiry
proceedings, we find that the said facts have remained to be unconsidered
by the learned single judge.
8. Though suspension orders may normally not be interfered in exercise
of writ jurisdiction, at the same time, where neither it may appear that
major penalty may arise upon completion of domestic inquiry nor there
may be any risk to the fairness and completeness of the domestic inquiry
itself, suspension orders may not be confirmed merely because the
petitioner may have a right to reinstatement in service with back wages,
SPLA No. 413 of 2026
3
later.
9. Accordingly, order dated 23.3.2026 of the learned single judge is set-
aside to the extent the suspension order has been set-aside. Further, the
special appeal is disposed of with the following observations :
The suspension order dated 19.2.2026 is set-aside subject to the petitioner
continuing to participate in the inquiry proceeding such that the same may
be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 60
days from today.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shiv
Digitally signed by :-
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…