Allahabad High Court
MASOOD ISHRATversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The Court, by consent of the parties, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage and directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within one month.
Summary
The petitioner, a government servant, was arrested in connection with an FIR and subsequently suspended under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. After being released on bail, he filed a representation under Rule 4(3)(b) on 19‑08‑2026, seeking relief from the suspension, but no decision was made by the Principal Secretary. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the suspension and the inaction on his representation. The respondent argued that the representation should be considered in accordance with the Rules. The Court, noting that further adjudication would not serve any purpose, disposed of the petition at the admission stage by mutual consent, directing the respondent to decide the representation within one month. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition challenging the suspension of a government servant pending consideration of his representation under Rule 4(3)(b) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
Subjects
- suspension
- government servant rules
- U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999
- writ petition
- representation
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14259 of 2026
Masood Ishrat
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Pandey, Hemant Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an F.I.R was
registered against the training partner and subsequently, his name was
also included as a co-accused; and in pursuance of which he was arrested
on 24.07.2026 and eventually released on bail on 03.08.2026; but
however the petitioner was placed on suspension vide order dated
31.07.2026 in view of Rule 4(3)(a) of U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. However, immediately after being
released on bail, the petitioner has also represented in terms of Rule
4(3)(b) on 19.08.2026; but no decision has been taken by the respondent
no.1- Principal Secretary, Department of Vocational Education, Skilled
Development and Entrepreneurship. U.P., Lucknow.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that due
consideration shall be given to the petitioner's representation dated
19.08.2026, in terms of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Rules, 1999.
4. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose shall be served in keeping
the present writ petition pending; and accordingly, by the consent of the
parties the same is being decided at the admission stage, with the
direction to the Respondent No. 1- Principal Secretary, Department of
Vocational Education, Skilled Development and Entrepreneurship. U.P.,
Lucknow, to consider the representation of the petitioners dated
WRIA No. 14259 of 2026
2
19.08.2026 and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 30, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…