Allahabad High Court
FAIZ TAIMURIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The suspension order shall be kept in abeyance pending the disciplinary inquiry, and the petitioner must file a reply within 15 days while the disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the proceedings within four months.
Summary
The petitioner, Faiz Taimuri, challenged his suspension dated 09.07.2026, alleging it violated the proviso to Regulation 4(i) of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020, which permits suspension only when the allegations, if proved, would ordinarily warrant a major penalty. The respondents argued that a charge‑sheet had been served and an enquiry officer appointed, and that the petitioner had not filed a reply. The High Court examined the regulatory provision and, without expressing an opinion on the merits, ordered that the suspension be kept in abeyance, the petitioner file a detailed reply within 15 days, and the disciplinary authority conclude the inquiry within four months, allowing for possible transfer of the petitioner. The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension order dated 09.07.2026 violates the proviso to Regulation 4(i) of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the suspension order kept in abeyance pending the disciplinary inquiry.
- Whether the court can direct a time‑bound completion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceedings
- U.P. Power Corporation
- Regulation 4(i)
- writ petition
- abeyance
- due process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15463 of 2026
Faiz Taimuri
.....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., Manu Ghildyal
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1; Shri Vinay
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, and
perused the record on Board.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2026, whereby he has
been placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary
proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suspension order has been
passed in violation of proviso to Regulation 4(i) of the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020 (in
brevity 'Regulations '2020'). However, a condition has been imposed through
the proviso, appended thereto, that the power of suspension ought 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.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has
contended that charge-sheet dated 27.08.2026 has already been served upon
the petitioner on 31.08.2026 and the enquiry officer has been appointed.
However; reply has not been submitted to the said charge-sheet.
5. 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(i) of the Regulations,
2020, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be
WRIA No. 15463 of 2026
2
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 petitioner shall file his detailed reply/defence to the memo of charges
served upon him within a period of 15 from the date of receipt thereof.
(ii) 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 four months thereafter, 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 09.07.2026, 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.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
September 24, 2026
VR
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA RATAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…