Disposed

Shahab Uddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025WRIA/1130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court expedited disciplinary proceedings, directing the enquiry officer to supply demanded documents within four weeks. Proceedings must conclude within two months of the reply; otherwise, suspension stands revoked and the petitioner is reinstated with salary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to expedite disciplinary proceedings; suspension to be revoked and reinstatement ordered if proceedings are not concluded within the stipulated time.

Shahab Uddin Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47798

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1130 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Shahab Uddin Siddiqui Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on records.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has questioned the order of suspension dated 31.10.2023 only on the ground that the allegation with which the petitioner has been charged under the suspension order did not find place in the articles of charges that have been mentioned in the charge sheet and thus, petitioner is liable to be reinstated.

¶9

It is contended that the charges that have been levelled against the petitioner are baseless as no iota of evidence is available to the respondents to frame such charges and prove the same.

¶10

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already been served with charge sheet dated 04.02.2025 on 18.02.2025, I consider it more appropriate to expedite the disciplinary proceedings and

¶11

in the event of delay, since the petitioner has remained under suspension since 31.10.2023, the petitioner may not be continued under suspension.

¶12

At this stage counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has demanded copies of evidence upon which reliance has been place in the articles of charges but the same has remained denied to the petitioner. The letter dated 23.02.2025 sent by registered post to the enquiry officer has been brought on record.

¶13

In view of the above, enquiry officer is directed to supply the requisite/ demanded documents to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and in the event it is not possible to supply the documents for any confidentiality, the enquiry officer may permit petitioner perusal of documents before he submits reply within the same period. Soon after the receipt of the document demanded by the petitioner or perusal of documents by him, as the case may be, petitioner would be required to submit his reply within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall also be cooperating in the disciplinary proceeding.

¶14

The entire disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a period of two months after submission of reply by the petitioner. Petitioner shall continue to receive his subsistence

¶15

allowance during the period he remained under suspension. However, it is provided that in the event respondent disciplinary authority fails to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the time frame as prescribed for hereinabove, despite due cooperation by the petitioner, the order of suspension dated 31.10.2023 shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement and payment of salary.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Nadeem

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahab Uddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahab Uddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manmohan Soni and 28 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mulayam Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asharfi Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Devanand Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Imran Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sub Inspector Satyavir Singh vs State of U.P. and Another