Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024WRIA/6709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a suspension order. The court directed the petitioner to submit a defence reply within one week and fixed a deadline for the conclusion of departmental inquiry, specifying that failure to conclude by the specified date would result in revocation of the suspension.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit defence reply within one week; inquiry to be concluded by 1 October 1994 or suspension revoked.

Seraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | 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.] Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Om

¶22

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harishchandra Gupta and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Irrigation and Water, Lko

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Personnel Lko. and 4 Others

Sufiyaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Savita Rani, Pno 112292384 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Yogesh Pal Pno No. 192412054 Vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. Deptt of Home. Lko. and 5 Others