Disposed

Seraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drugs Administration Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024/6709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a suspension order and pending departmental proceedings, the High Court directed the petitioner to submit a defence reply within one week and the department to conclude the inquiry before a deadline tied to the petitioner's retirement date, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direct submission of defence reply within one week and conclusion of departmental inquiry within one month of receipt or by October 26, 2024.

Seraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65137

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6709 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Seraj Ahmad

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Food Safety And Drugs Administration Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Aftab Ahmad,Asma Shamim,Meghna Singhal,Mohammed Hamza Shamim Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

This Court has passed order dated 21.8.2024 which reads as under :

¶9

"Heard Sri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

By means of the present petitioner, the petitioner has assailed the suspension order dated 30.07.2024.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of the Rule IV of the The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, in as much as, the petitioner has been suspended on frivolous grounds.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a weeks' time to seek complete written instructions in the matter.

¶13

List this matter on 30.08.2024, as fresh.

¶14

This matter may be taken up after fresh cases."

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the petitioner have stated that charge-sheet dated 5.9.2024 approved on 11.9.2024 has been served upon the petitioner. In the aforesaid charge-sheet three charges have been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner has been asked to submit his defence reply within a period of 15 days.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since this writ petition was pending, therefore, the petitioner could not submit his defence reply. He has further submitted that though the suspension order does not qualify the test of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1999 but the petitioner may submit his defence reply to

¶17

the charge-sheet and shall cooperate in the departmental proceedings but any protection may be given to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner is going to retire on 30.10.2024.

¶18

Since the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit his defence reply to the charge-sheet within a period of one week and immediately after receiving the defence reply to the chargesheet the departmental inquiry shall be concluded within a period of one month by affording an opportunity of hearing by fixing date, time and place for oral inquiry. In any case the departmental inquiry shall be concluded on or before 26.10.2024, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked.

¶19

It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental inquiry. If the departmental inquiry is not concluded after submission of the defence reply of the petitioner and proper cooperation of the petitioner on or before the date fixed and suspension order is revoked, in that case the departmental inquiry may go on and final order may be passed by the disciplinary authority, if it is so required but after seeking explanation from the petitioner providing him a copy of the inquiry report.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Om

¶23

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Seraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drugs Administration Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drugs Administration Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Ors.

Alkesh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rameshwar Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water Resources Lko. and 2 Others

Shiv Shankar Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Up Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Kamlesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and 3 Others

Salikram Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others