State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Civil Sectt. and Another Vs Santosh Kumar Ojha — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Civil Sectt. and Another Vs Santosh Kumar Ojha — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 59 days in filing the appeal condoned; interim stay of the order of suspension affirmed without interference; respondent to be re-instated in service and paid salary regularly as and when due; ongoing enquiry to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months; respondent free to conclude disciplinary proceedings uninfluenced by the single judge's other observations; intra-court appeal and writ petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the reported delay of 59 days in filing the special appeal should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient; the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Ratio / Principle

To the extent the writ court's interim order stays the operation of the order of suspension, this Court is in agreement with the writ court, as the charge-sheet has been issued after collection of evidence.

Key takeaways

The interim stay of the order of suspension granted by the writ court does not require any interference in exercise of the appellate power of this Court; the impugned order is affirmed as good to the extent of staying the order of suspension.ratio¶19
The ongoing inquiry shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.ratio¶18
The respondent shall be free to conclude the disciplinary proceedings without being influenced by any other observation made in the order passed by the learned single judge.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Special Appeal (Defective) No. 147 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:20094-DB), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, coram Attau Rahman Masoodi and Rajeev Singh, JJ., order dated 9.4.2025. The State of U.P. appealed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against the writ court's interim order staying the operation of the suspension order of Santosh Kumar Ojha. A reported delay of 59 days was condoned. Although respondent's counsel preliminarily objected that an intra-court appeal does not lie against an interlocutory order not deciding the lis finally, the Court disposed of the appeal with directions: it agreed with the writ court's interim stay of suspension (the charge-sheet having been issued after collection of evidence, and the respondent not being posted at the place to which the charges relate), affirmed the impugned order to that extent, directed completion of the Rule-7 U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules enquiry preferably within six months, ordered reinstatement with regular payment of salary, and left the respondent free to conclude the disciplinary proceedings uninfluenced by the single judge's other observations.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20094-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 147 of 2025

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment And Personnel Civil Sectt. And Another Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Ritika Singh,Gaurav Mehrotra

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

C.M.Application No. 1 of 2025

The appeal has been filed with a reported delay of 59 days. It is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Order on Appeal

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Ritika Singh holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the order impugned here in this appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules is an interlocutory order and does not decide the lis between the parties finally, therefore, the intra-court appeal against such an interlocutory order would not lie.

In reply to the arguments put-forth by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been submitted that the relief

granted by the writ court essentially is in the nature of final relief, therefore, the impugned order is virtually a final order and thus the intra-court appeal would lie. We notice that the writ court while entertaining the writ petition has made an observation in para-5 that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet are not so serious to entail a major penalty and it is to this extent that the special appeal is pressed. We find that the interim order stays the operation of the order of suspension and to this extent we are in agreement with the writ court as the charge-sheet has been issued after collection of evidence.

It is also noteworthy that the enquiry proceedings have been initiated against the appellant under the provisions of Rule-7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules as may be warranted for a major penalty.

We also take note of the fact that the respondent at this point of time is not posted at the place to which the charges relate, therefore, there is no scope for the respondent to interfere with the on going proceedings either by having access to the record or otherwise.

The writ court has, however, desisted from staying the ongoing inquiry, therefore, the interim stay granted by the writ court to the extent of staying the order of suspension in our humble consideration does not require any interference in exercise of appellate power of this Court.

We however make it clear that the on going inquiry shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today. While affirming the

impugned order as good to the extent of staying the order of suspension, the respondent however shall be free to conclude the disciplinary proceedings without being influenced by any other observation made in the order passed by learned single judge.

It is further provided that the respondent is expected to be re-instated in service and paid his salary regularly as and when it becomes due.

With these observations the intra-court appeal as well as the writ petition stand disposed of.

(Rajeev Singh,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Shahnaz

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