Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
A suspension order cannot be sustained without service of the memo of charges, and the disciplinary proceedings must be initiated and concluded within the timeframes prescribed by the court.
Summary
The petitioner challenged his suspension order dated 31.10.2025, arguing that the respondents had not served the memo of charges despite a long lapse. The court noted that the respondents admitted the failure to serve the charge sheet and found no merit in keeping the writ petition pending. Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to serve the memo of charges, constitute an inquiry committee or appoint an inquiry officer within ten days, and set timelines for the petitioner’s reply and the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The suspension order was held in abeyance, with the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits, and the court clarified that the petitioner could be transferred if necessary. The writ petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a suspension order can remain in force when the memo of charges has not been served on the employee.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the suspension order quashed or kept in abeyance pending due process.
- What procedural directions are appropriate to ensure a fair and timely disciplinary inquiry.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- service of charge sheet
- due process
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14163 of 2026
Vinod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satyam Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2025, whereby he
has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite laps of
considerable time since the date of suspension order dated 31.10.2025, the
respondents have not served a copy of memo charges upon the petitioner. It
is, therefore, submitted that the suspension order deserves to be quashed in
the light of lad laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar
Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.
3. Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents no.2 and 3 does not
refute the contention of the petitioners the fact that the memo of charges has
not yet been served upon the petitioner. As such, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the instant writ petition pending. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate
to finally dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :
(i) The contesting respondents shall serve the memo of charges upon the
petitioner, and constitute an Inquiry Committee or appoint an Inquiry
Officer, as the case may be, within ten days from today.
(ii) The petitioner shall file his detailed reply/defence to the memo of
charges served upon him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
thereof.
WRIA No. 14163 of 2026
2
(iii) Upon receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner, 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.
(iv) Till a final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, the effect and
operation of the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, whereby the petitioner
has been placed under suspension, shall be kept in abeyance and petitioner
shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.
(v) 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.
(vi) It is, however, clarified that, if considered necessary, the competent
authority shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to any other place or at
the head quarter, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
September 9, 2026
VS
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…