Allahabad High Court
BHAGWATI PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the suspension be kept in abeyance and the disciplinary proceedings be concluded within two months, without expressing any view on the merits.
Summary
Bhagwati Prasad challenged his suspension dated 5 January 2026, contending that it violated the proviso to Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 2020, which permits suspension only when the allegations are so serious that they would normally attract a major penalty. He submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were still pending and that a similarly situated employee had obtained interim relief in a related writ. The respondent argued that the enquiry report had been filed on 18 September 2026 and the inquiry would be concluded shortly. The High Court, after considering the submissions, declined to express an opinion on the merits, ordered that the suspension be kept in abeyance, and directed the disciplinary authority to complete the proceedings within two months while granting the petitioner full cooperation. The court then disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order dated 5 January 2026 contravened the proviso to Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 2020.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay of the suspension pending the conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry.
- Whether the writ petition should be disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the disciplinary case.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- writ petition
- due process
- U.P. Power Corporation Regulations
- administrative law
- interim relief
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13946 of 2026
Bhagwati Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., K.K. Rao
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. While entertaining, the instant writ petition, following order dated
14.09.2026 was passed by this Court:
"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2026, whereby he
has been placed under suspension.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been placed under suspension in contravention of the
provisions enunciated in proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 2020. It
is further submitted that similarly situated employee has been granted
interim relief by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this
Court in Writ-a No.1367 of 2026; Hem Raj vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others
(Annexure-5).
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 prays for and
is granted a week's time to complete his instructions with regard to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Put up this matter again as fresh on 22.09.2026."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already
submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him, however, till date,
the disciplinary proceedings have not yet been concluded. It is further
submitted that, while passing the suspension order, the provisions enunciated
in proviso to Rule 4(1) of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Employees
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (in brevity, 'Regulations, 2020'),
have not been complied with. However, a condition has been imposed
through the proviso, appended thereto, that the power of suspension ought
WRIA No. 13946 of 2026
2
not to be exercised unless the allegations against the employee are of such
serious nature that in the event of their being established, they would
ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty.
3. Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting-respondents
has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and contends that the enquiry officer has already submitted
his enquiry report on 18.09.2026 and that the disciplinary proceedings will
be concluded at the earliest.
4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of record, and having regard to the
provisions enunciated under proviso to Regulation 4(1) of the Regulations,
2020, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the instant writ petition pending. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it
appropriate to finally dispose of the instant writ petition with the following
directions :-
(i) The disciplinary authority shall make every endeavour to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two
month from today, after affording the petitioner due and proper
opportunity of hearing.
(iii) Till a final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, the
effect and operation of the impugned order dated 05.01.2026,
whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension, shall be
kept in abeyance.
(iv) 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.
(v) It is, however, clarified that, if considered necessary, the
competent authority shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to
any other place within the territorial jurisdiction of the same
distribution company, or at the head quarter, during the pendency
of the disciplinary proceedings.
WRIA No. 13946 of 2026
3
5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
September 29, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…