DINESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                        WRIT - A No. - 12965 of 2026

Dinesh Kumar
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Kailash Prakash Pandey,               Saurabh
                                      Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C., Munna Pandey

Court No. - 32
                      HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Munna Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3; learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2 and perused the record on board.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2026, wbereby he has
been placed under suspension without contemplation of any disciplinary
proceedings.

3. While entertaining, the instant writ petition, this court passed the
following order dated 03.09.2026:-
     "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel
     representing State-respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Munna Pandey,
     learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

     2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order
     dated 14.05.2026 has been passed without contemplation of the
     disciplinary inquiry. He further submits that, till date, no charge-sheet
     has been served upon the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that no inquiry
     Officer has been appointed pursuant to the suspension order dated
     14.05.2026.

     3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
     prays for and is granted one week's time to seek instructions from the
     authorities concerned regarding the submissions advanced by learned
     counsel for the petitioner.

     4. List this matter as fresh on 14.09.2026."

4. In compliance with the order dated 03.09.2026, learned Standing Counsel
has filed a copy of the instructions today, which is taken on record. On the
basis of the instructions, he submits that, by a separate order dated
14.05.2026, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division,
Agra was appointed as the Enquiry Officer under Rule 33 of Uttar Pradesh
Development Authorities Centralized Service Rules, 1985, read with Rule 7
                                                           WRIA No. 12965 of 2026
                                 2

of UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1999. It is further
submitted that the chargesheet dated 08.08.2026/11.08.2026 has already
been served upon the petitioner who has also filed his reply to the said memo
of charges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, from a perusal of the
chargesheet, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has been suspended on
account of incident of arson which occurred on 11.02.2026 due to a short
circuit. However, the petitioner had already been transferred from Vrindavan
to Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 13.06.2025 and, therefore, he cannot be
held directly responsible for the incident of arson which occurred on
11.02.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
suspension order passed against the petitioner is not in consonance with the
first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. As per his submission, the power of
suspension ought not to be exercised unless the allegations against the
employee are of such a serious nature that in the event of their being
established, they may ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended
that, on account of illegal construction having been raised over the plot in
question, a demolition order was passed on 02.08.2024. However, the said
order was not implemented by the petitioner during the period of discharging
his duties at Vrindavan. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is
personally responsible for the incident which occurred in relation to the
construction raised over the plot in question.

7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the
suspension order has been passed under the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. A
perusal of Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999 reveals that the suspension should not ordinarily be
resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servants are of
such a serious nature that in the event of their being established, they may
ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty. In the present matter, there
is no specific finding recorded by the contesting-respondents indicating that,
in the event the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved, they
would ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty. However, having
regard to the nature of the allegations and the factual controversy involved,
this court is not inclined to examine the merits of the allegations at this stage
or to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.

8. Thus, in view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the present writ petition pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it
appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case, with the following directions:

     (i) The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before the
     authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today.
                                                                                               WRIA No. 12965 of 2026
                                                                     3

                                         Upon receipt there of, the disciplinary authority shall make every
                                         endeavour to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a
                                         period of five months thereafter, after affording the petitioner due
                                         and proper opportunity of hearing.

                                         (ii) The petitioner shall extend full co-operation in the
                                         disciplinary proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary
                                         adjournment. In the event of any delay not attributed to the
                                         petitioner, the disciplinary authority shall ensure that the
                                         proceedings are concluded within the aforesaid period.

                                         (iii) Till a final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, the
                                         effect and operation of the suspension order dated 14.05.2026,
                                         whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension, shall
                                         remain in abeyance.

                                         (iv) It is, however, clarified that, if considered necessary, the
                                         competent authority shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to
                                         any other place during the pendency of the disciplinary
                                         proceedings.

                                    9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands
                                    disposed of.

                                    September 21, 2026
                                    vinay
                                                                                                (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad