Allowed¶42

Pawan Kishor v. State of U.P.Throu Its Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench – WRIT

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025WRIA/1199/2015

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension without application of mind; appointing authority's discretion; Rule 4 U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999; Article 309 Constitution of India; Director Local Bodies U.P.; State Government direction letter dated 20.02.2015; two letters of local MLA dated 28.01.2015 as sole material; Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat Salon Raebareli; abdication of discretion; counter affidavit; stay order dated 31.3.2015; writ petition allowed; suspension order set aside; consequences to follow.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order dated 3.3.2015 passed by the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies, Lucknow is set aside; consequences to follow. ¶42

Pawan Kishor Vs State of U.P.Throu Its Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko.and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned suspension order dated 3.3.2015 passed by the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies, Lucknow is set aside; consequences to follow.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 3.3.2015 passed by the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies — resting solely on the State Government's letter dated 20.02.2015, which itself arose from two letters of a local MLA, without application of independent mind by the appointing authority — was sustainable under Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and ought to be set aside.

¶40

Court's answer

[Proposition from the Court's order dated 31.3.2015 reproduced in the judgment] Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, framed under Article 309, makes it incumbent upon the appointing authority to apply its mind as to the seriousness of the charges before suspending; the discretion to suspend cannot be exercised without application of mind, which depends on the availability of material on record.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

[Proposition from the Court's order dated 31.3.2015 reproduced in the judgment] Except for two letters written by the local MLA, no other material was available before the State Government or before the Director, Local Bodies (the appointing authority), and those letters cannot be said to form sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion to place an employee under suspension.

¶35

Key takeaways

[Proposition from the Court's order dated 31.3.2015 reproduced in the judgment] Since the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director and not the State Government, the Director ought to have applied his independent mind to the material on record, which disclosed nothing beyond the State Government's letter dated 20.02.2015; prima facie the Director did not apply his mind and appears to have abdicated and surrendered his discretion.ratio¶38
Although the competent authority passed the impugned suspension order, no independent mind was applied by the competent authority while passing it.ratio¶40
On the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel could not indicate that there had been any application of mind by the Director while passing the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — WRIT - A No. 1199 of 2015 (Abdul Moin, J.; decided September 24, 2025). The petitioner, appointed through the U.P. Public Service Commission and posted as Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Salon, Raebareli (first joining 20.07.2014), was placed under suspension by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P. vide order dated 03.03.2015, acting on the State Government's letter dated 20.02.2015. The produced records showed that the only basis for the direction was two letters written by a local MLA received on 28.01.2015. Invoking Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (framed under Article 309 of the Constitution), whose proviso requires that suspension not be resorted to unless the allegations are serious enough ordinarily to warrant major penalty, the Court held that the appointing authority's discretion to suspend cannot be exercised without application of mind dependent on available material; the Director, being the appointing authority, ought to have applied his independent mind, but abdicated and surrendered his discretion, and the counter affidavit offered no contrary indication. The writ petition was allowed and the suspension order dated 3.3.2015 was set aside, consequences to follow. (An interim stay of the suspension with duty and salary continuance had operated since the Court's order dated 31.3.2015.)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1199 of 2015

Pawan Kishor

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P.Throu Its Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko.And Ors.

¶7

o.n rs.		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: P.L.Gupta, Adarsh Vikas Maurya, Vino	Kumar Maurya, d Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Amit Gupta,	Yogendra Mishra

¶8

Court No. - 4

¶9

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶11

2. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 3.3.2015, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies, Lucknow.

¶12

3. This Court has passed a detailed order dated 31.3.2015 by which the suspension order had been stayed until further order. The said order still continues.

¶13

4. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 31.3.2015 passed by this Court is reproduced below:

¶14

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

¶15

Let a counter affidavit to the averments made in the writ petition be filed by the respondents within four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶17

Pursuant to the earlier order dated 24.03.2015, the records from the office of Director, Local Bodies, U.P. Directorate, Indira Bhawan,

¶18

WRIA No. 1199 of 2015

¶19

¶20

Lucknow and also from the State Government have been produced.

¶21

The petitioner has been placed under suspension by means of the order dated 03.03.2015, passed by the Director, Local Bodies, U.P. on the direction issued by the State Government by means of letter dated 20.02.2015.

¶22

The fact that the suspension order has been passed by the Director pursuant to the letter of the State Government is clear from the endoresement-1 made in the order dated 03.03.2015 itself. The original record produced before the Court from the Directorate does not contain any document or material leading to suspension of the petitioner except the letter of the State Government dated 20.02.2015. It appears from the documents available in the said file of the Directorate that pursuant to his selection by the U.P. Public Service Commission and appointment made thereon, petitioner had submitted his first joining at Nagar Panchayat, Salon, Raebareli on 20.07.2014.

¶23

As far as the record of the State Government produced before the Court is concerned, the same contains two letters written by a local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) which appear to have been received by the State Government on 28.01.2015. In one of the said letters, it has been stated by the MLA that the petitioner appears to be a relative of a political leader belonging to a political party and further that he was earlier posted somewhere else, however, since he belongs to Gauriganj, as such he has got himself transferred to Salon. The letter further states that the petitioner permits individuals belonging to a particular political party to have access in his office, therefore, he be transferred from Salon. The letter further states that his removal from Salon is very necessary for the reason that the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Salon is also not happy with the petitioner. In the other letter, it has been stated by the same MLA that petitioner proclaims himself to be a relative of a political leader and earlier he was posted somewhere else but some how he managed to be posted at Salon. Letter further states that the petitioner appreciates functioning of earlier Government.

¶24

In this second letter also it has been stated by the MLA that petitioner be transferred/removed immediately from Salon Town Area.

¶25

Except the aforesaid two letters received in the State Government on the same day, i.e. on 28.01.2015, there is no other material on the basis of which the State Government has directed the Director, Local Bodies, U.P. to place the petitioner under suspension by means of letter dated 20.02.2015.

¶26

Admittedly, the appointing authority of the incumbent holding the post of Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Salon is the Director, Local Bodies. The State Government can, of course, issue necessary directions

¶27

WRIA No. 1199 of 2015

¶28

¶29

to take appropriate disciplinary action against an erring employee. However, the provision contained in Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have to be kept in mind by the Appointing Authority, which provides that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the Appointing Authority. The provision of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules contains a caveat in the shape of a proviso appended thereto, which provides that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established, the same may ordinarily warrant major penalty. Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶30

"4. Suspension.- (1) A Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the Appointing Authority:

¶31

Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government Servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty :

¶32

Provided further that concerned Head of Department empowered by the governor by an order in this behalf may place a Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'A' and 'B' posts under suspensions under this rule:

¶33

Provided also that in the case of any Government Servant or class of Government Servant belonging to Group 'C' and 'D' posts, the Appointing Authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority"

¶34

From a perusal of the aforequoted Rule 4, which has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is abundantly clear that the discretion of the appointing authority for placing the government servant under suspension cannot be exercised without application of mind. The proviso appended to said Rule 4 makes it incumbent upon the appointing authority to apply his mind as to the seriousness of the charges which, if established, may ordinarily result into award of major penalty. Application of mind by the appointing authority for exercising his discretion will depend upon the availability of material on record.

¶35

In the instant case, except for two letters written by the local MLA, there is no other material available either before the State Government or even before the Director, Local Bodies, who is the appointing authority. The said letters, in my considered opinion, cannot be said to be the basis of placing the petitioner under suspension as these letters do not form

¶36

WRIA No. 1199 of 2015

¶37

¶38

sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion to place an employee under suspension. Further, since the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the Director and not the State Government, it is the Director who ought to have applied his independent mind to the material available on record. Record maintained in the office of Director does not disclose any material except the letter of the State Government dated 20.02.2015. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the Director has not applied his mind before taking the decision to place the petitioner under suspension; rather he appears to have abdicated and surrendered his discretion.

¶39

Accordingly, till further orders of this Court, the operation and implementation of the impugned suspension order dated 03.03.2015, passed by the Director, Directorate of U.P., Local Bodies, Lucknow shall remain stayed. The petitioner shall be allowed to discharge duties of the post of Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat,Salon, Raebareli and he will also be paid salary as and when the same accrues to him."

¶40

5. From the aforesaid order it emerges that although the competent authority has passed the impugned order of suspension but no independent mind had been applied by the competent authority while passing the impugned suspension order.

¶41

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit has also not been able to indicate that there has been application of mind on the part of the Director while passing the order impugned.

¶42

7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order of suspension dated 3.3.2015, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside.

¶43

8. Consequences to follow.

¶44

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶45

September 24, 2025

¶46

J. K. Dinkar

¶47

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Kishor v. State of U.P.Throu Its Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kishor v. State of U.P.Throu Its Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Lakhan Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Vijendra Kumar Verma and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vishnu Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Piyush Kumar Verma and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ramdeo Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others