Vivek Roy vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3260 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vivek Roy vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 4 August, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45089
 
Court No. - 4
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7724 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Vivek Roy
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment Forest And Climate Change Deptt., Lucknow
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Salil Kumar Srivastava,Rahul Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma,Ishan Baghel
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

Morning Session

The specific case of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of passing of suspension order dated 10.11.2024 neither departmental inquiry was contemplated nor was pending against the petitioner as specifically averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Incidentally U.P. Pollution Control Board though has filed its counter affidavit but as per the reply given thereto in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit the said averments have been indicated to be false, incorrect, misleading and devoid of merit without adverting or replying to specific averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.

Shri Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 is required to seek instructions as to whether on the date of passing of suspension order i.e. 10.11.2024 any departmental inquiry was contemplated or pending against the petitioner.

Put up this case at 0215 PM.

At 0215 PM

1. At the very outset, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel states that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 1.

2. The aforesaid statement is recorded and the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishan Baghel and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3.

4. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 10.11.2024. a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

5. A specific averment has been made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that on the date of passing of the suspension order i.e 10.11.2024 neither any inquiry was contemplated nor was proceeding against the petitioner and thus considering Rule 4 (1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Rules"), the suspension order is patently vitiated on this ground alone.

6. When the matter was taken up in the morning session, this Court had specifically required the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 3 to seek instructions as to whether on the date of the suspension i.e 10.11.2024, any inquiry was contemplated or pending against the petitioner.

7. Sri Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 informs on the basis of records as made available by the respondents no. 2 & 3 and are available in Court today itself which have been perused by Sri Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 that on the date of the suspension order dated 10.11.2024, neither any departmental inquiry was contemplated nor was pending. He further states that the recommendation for issuance of charge sheet was sent on 28.11.2024 and in fact the charge sheet dated 02.01.2025 has been issued to the petitioner.

8. Sri Baghel, Advocate argues that now the aforesaid ground of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1999 may not be available to the petitioner considering the fact that the charge sheet has already been issued to him.

9. However, Sri Baghel states that he does not press with this argument at this stage.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P and Ors- (2007) SCC OnLine All 870 after considering the provisions of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1999 has held as under:-

"4. Learned Counsel for the parties have not disputed that a member of centralised service of Development Authority can be placed under suspension under Rule 4(1) of 1999 Rules which reads as under:

4. Suspension.-(1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority:

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty:

Provided further that concerned Head of the Department empowered by the Governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servants belonging to Group "A' and "B' posts under suspension under this rule:

Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group "C and "D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority.

5. A perusal of Rule 4(1) shows that a government servant can be placed under suspension against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding. A perusal of the entire order of suspension impugned in this writ petition nowhere shows that an inquiry was in contemplation or pending warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. Suspension order has been passed without mentioning as to whether the incumbent is being placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency thereof. The question whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. The Chief Medical Officer and Ors. (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, in which one of us (Hon'ble S.R. Alam, J.) was a member, and it was held as under:

3. From the said rule it appears that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fad that any inquiry is pending.4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained....

6. The order of suspension impugned in this writ petition also suffers from the same illegality and, therefore, in our view it cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down in the case of Meera Tiwari (Supra)."

(emphasis by the Court)

11. From a perusal of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra) it clearly emerges that the Division Bench after placing reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Meera Tiwari (smt) Vs. The Chief Medical Officer- (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057 has held that a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry yet the impugned order of suspension has to refer to either the inquiry being contemplated or the fact that the inquiry is pending and in absence thereto, the suspension order would be vitiated.

12. Perusal of the suspension order dated 10.11.2024 would indicate that the aforesaid fact does not find mentioned in the suspension order.

13. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 10.11.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed.

14. Consequences to follow.

15. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

16. Needless to mention that the petitioner would co-operate in the inquiry proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner more particularly Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that he has not challenged the charge sheet.

Order Date :- 4.8.2025

Pachhere/-