The single judge declined to interfere with a suspension order involving acts shocking the conscience, while directing subsistence allowance.
Directions for subsistence allowance and participation in disciplinary proceedings; petition consigned to records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209766
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18391 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Shiv Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The allegations in the suspension order are not merely regarding outraging the modesty of a woman but also something more which shocks the conscience of the Court.
Accordingly, I decline to interfere in the matter.
Moreover, suspension is not a punishment, therefore, petitioner may participate in the disciplinary proceedings and he shall be paid subsistence allowance for the period he remains under suspension.
Subject to the above direction, this petition is consigned to records.
Consigned to records.
Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Atmesh
Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension order, alleging acts outraging modesty and shocking conscience, warrants judicial interference.
Dileep Kumar
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
