Allahabad High Court
DR. ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court held that the suspension order was not vitiated by the withdrawal of the MLA's complaint and therefore did not interfere, but directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Summary
Dr. Anil Kumar challenged a suspension order dated 21 July 2026 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department, alleging it was based on a complaint filed by an MLA on 21 May 2026. The petitioner argued that the MLA had withdrawn the complaint before the suspension was imposed, rendering the order invalid. The respondent's standing counsel contended that the suspension was not issued on the MLA's direction and that no material supported the petitioner's claim. The court found no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the order was improperly based on the withdrawn complaint and therefore declined to interfere with the suspension. However, the court directed the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months, ensuring a hearing for the petitioner. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, is invalid due to the withdrawal of the MLA's complaint
- Whether the High Court should set aside the suspension order on the basis of lack of material evidence
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- administrative order
- withdrawal of complaint
- Animal Husbandry Department
- High Court
- due process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11359 of 2026
Dr. Anil Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Sadhana Maurya
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2026
passed by Additional Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow/respondent no. 2.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner
has been placed under suspension by the order impugned dated
21.07.2026 on the ground that the order impugned has been passed on a
complaint made by concerned M.L.A. on 21.05.2026 to the Ministry.
4. By order dated 06.08.2026, instructions were called.
5. Today, instructions have been placed before this Court which are taken
on record.
6. On the basis of instructions, it has been submitted by learned Standing
Counsel that the order impugned has not been passed on the direction
either of minister or M.L.A. concerned. Learned Standing Counsel has
invited attention of the Court towards the annexure no. 7 filed by the
petitioner himself, wherein the concerned M.L.A. has withdrawn the
complaint and further submitted that the order of suspension has been
passed much after the withdrawal of the complaint. There is no material
on record to support the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order
WRIA No. 11359 of 2026
2
impugned.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet has
been submitted against the petitioner to which reply has been filed by the
petitioner.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is
disposed of with a direction to disciplinary authority to conclude the
disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months, after providing opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, provided there is no other legal impediment.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 18, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…