Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMAR MISHRAversusDINESH CHANDRA PATHAK AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The complainant lacks locus standi to seek leave to appeal; the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Vinod Kumar Mishra, the complainant in a disciplinary proceeding against Dinesh Chandra Pathak, filed an application for leave to appeal a single judge's order that the suspension order remain in abeyance pending the enquiry. The High Court examined whether a complainant, who is not a co‑employee of the original petitioner, has any cause of action or standing to challenge the order. The Court observed that the disciplinary enquiry had not been interfered with on merits and that the complainant could at most be called to lead evidence, subject to the discretion of the presenting officer. Consequently, the Court held that no locus standi existed for the complainant to seek leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore declined and the proposed appeal was consigned to the record.
Issues considered
- Whether a complainant in a departmental disciplinary proceeding has locus standi to seek leave to appeal against a single judge's order suspending the disciplinary action.
Subjects
- Leave to appeal
- Locus standi
- Disciplinary enquiry
- Suspension order
- Civil Miscellaneous
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 364 of 2026
Vinod Kumar Mishra
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Dinesh Chandra Pathak And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pawan Kumar Dubey, Suresh Chandra
Dwivedi, Vinay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajeev Ratan Shukla
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant seeking
leave to appeal and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for the original petitioner.
2. Undeniably, the present applicant seeking leave to appeal is the
complainant on whose complaint disciplinary proceeding has been
initiated against the original petitioner. He is not a co-employee with the
original petitioner.
3. At present, the learned single judge has vide order dated 22.04.2026
passed in Dinesh Chandra Pathak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 2
Ors.; 2026:AHC:89418 only provided that the suspension order may
remain in abeyance during pendency of the enquiry proceedings.
Specifically, the disciplinary enquiry has not been interfered with, on
merits.
4. Seen in that light, the applicant in his capacity as a complainant may
not claim a higher/better status. At most, he may be called to lead
SPLAD No. 364 of 2026
2
evidence, subject to the discretion of the presenting officer at the pending
departmental enquiry.
5. For the above reasons, no cause of action exists with the applicant to
seek leave to appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined. Civil Misc.
(Leave to Appeal) Application No. 01 of 2026 is rejected.
6. Consequently, the proposed appeal is consigned to record.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Abhilash
Digitally signed by :-
ABHILASH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…