State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 4 Others Vs Pratibha and 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 406 of 2025

State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 4 others

ae ax o. an oers	Versus .....Appellant(s)
Pratibha and 4 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Akash Sinha, (S.C.) : Sharad Pathak (Sr. Adv) with Saurabh Pathak and Mayank Pandey

¶5

Chief Justice's Court

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Writ-A No.9114 of 2025 whereby learned Single Judge, on coming to the conclusion that prima facie, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents herein have force which require consideration and filing of the counter affidavit, granted interim relief.

¶8

The writ petition was filed questioning the validity of the orders dated 05.08.2025 whereby the respondents were placed under suspension. The orders of suspension indicated that for the action of respondents as Members of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in attempting to protect the persons accused, the respondents were suspended and disciplinary proceedings were being instituted against them.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed wherein learned Single Judge, after noticing the contentions raised and written instructions produced on behalf of the appellants pertaining to the seriousness of the allegations against the respondents in making a deliberate attempt to absolve the accused persons, has noticed that the matter requires consideration and while requiring filing of the counter affidavit, stayed the orders of suspension dated 05.08.2025.

¶10

Counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the interim order looking to the

¶11

SPLA No. 406 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

serious nature of the allegations made in the orders of suspension. An attempt was also made to substantiate the said allegations before this Court.

¶14

On previous date, counsel was required to make submissions pertaining to the status of the Members of ICC and whether action can be initiated against them based on the allegations made. Learned counsel with reference to the judgment in case of Union of India and others vs K.K. Dhawan : (1993) 2 SCC 56 made submissions that the ICC at best can be given the status of quasi judicial authority and it has been laid down in the case of K.K Dhawan (supra) that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the quasi judicial authority on the parameters indicated in the said judgment.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that filing of the appeal by the appellants itself is not bonafide, as on the one hand, an application seeking vacation of the interim order has been filed before the learned Single Judge, which continues to remain pending and, thereafter, on the other hand, the special appeal against the order dated 13.08.2025 has been filed.

¶16

Despite the orders of suspension having been stayed on 13.08.2025, the respondents have not been paid any salary for the months of August onwards and they have not been permitted to join and, therefore, the appellants are not entitled even to pursue the present appeal. Submissions have also been made that the pleas sought to be raised by the appellants can always be raised before the learned Single Judge and against the interim order, filing of the special appeal itself is not maintainable.

¶17

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶18

The entire attempt on part of the counsel for the appellants has been to emphasize that in the given facts of the case/ allegations against the respondents, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting interim order. Presently, except for the orders dated 05.08.2025 whereby the respondents have been suspended, no material is available on record to examine the alleged gravity of the allegations made.

¶19

SPLA No. 406 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

It is not in dispute that already an application seeking vacation of the interim order is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and after moving the said application, the present appeal has been filed seeking to question the validity of the order dated 13.08.2025.

¶22

While the application seeking vacation of the stay order remains pending, the attempt made to seek setting aside of the order by filing the present appeal, cannot be countenanced. The issue has to be agitated based on material to be filed by way of counter affidavit by the appellants before the learned Single Judge, seeking vacation of the interim order/dismissal of the writ petition. Agitating the subject matter in the present appeal, cannot be permitted.

¶23

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, leaving it open for the appellants to agitate the issue in the pending stay vacation application before the learned Single Judge. It is expected of the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the pending stay vacation application/writ petition with expedition.

¶24

The dismissal of this appeal shall not be taken as an expression of opinion by this Court qua the merits of the case of either of the parties.

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶26

November 20, 2025 Harshita/RK

¶27

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 4 Others v. Pratibha and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 4 Others v. Pratibha and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Tripathi and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Zulfekar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 15 Others

General Manager,Jal Kal Vibhag Hq Aishbagh Lko and Another vs Guru Prasad @ Guru Prasad Singh and 2 Others

M/S Regenvo Mobile Private Limited Lucknow Thru Its Director Rahul Singh and Anr. vs M/S Siyogi Enterprises Thru Managing Director and Others

Santosh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 8 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lucknow and Others vs Ram Prasad Verma