Mohar Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mohar Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief only: operation of the impugned suspension order dated 16.10.2025 stayed until further orders, expressly without precluding continuance of the enquiry; opposite parties granted four weeks to file counter affidavit; matter listed fresh for 02.01.2026. No final determination made.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 16.10.2025 should remain stayed, given that its principal allegation (petitioner's complicity in food adulteration found during the surprise inspection of 16.10.2025) finds no mention in the subsequent charge sheet dated 28.10.2025, whose three charges concern different conduct.

Court's answer

On a prima facie view, the petitioner's submission that the main allegation in the suspension order does not find mention in the charge sheet dated 28.10.2025 appears to have force and requires consideration; accordingly the opposite parties were granted four weeks' time to file their counter affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, until further orders of the Court the operation of the impugned suspension order dated 16.10.2025 shall remain stayed; this interim order shall not preclude continuance of any enquiry against the petitioner, and the case was directed to be listed fresh on 02.01.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J. — Writ - A No. 13092 of 2025, Mohar Singh Kushwaha v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy., Food Safety and Drug Administration, Lko. & 2 Ors. Petition under Article 226 challenging a suspension order dated 16.10.2025 imposing suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings on the petitioner, a Food Safety Officer, over alleged complicity in manufacture of adulterated food detected during a surprise inspection of the same date in his jurisdiction. A charge sheet dated 28.10.2025 thereafter raised three charges — two for non-response to directions of higher authorities regarding his duties, and one alleging illegal gratification taken by him from a shopkeeper unknown to him — but did not repeat the suspension order's principal allegation. Finding the petitioner's submissions prima facie to have force and requiring consideration, the Court granted the opposite parties four weeks to file a counter affidavit, directed the case to be listed fresh on 02.01.2026, and stayed operation of the suspension order until further orders, expressly stating that this would not preclude continuance of any enquiry against the petitioner. Interim order only; no final adjudication of the legality of the suspension.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 13092 of 2025

Mohar Singh Kushwaha

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Safety And Drug Administration Lko. And 2 Others

Drug Administration Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kishor Pandey, Tanveer Ahmad Lari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking challenge to order dated 16.10.2025 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the main allegation levelled against petitioner as indicated in the suspension order pertains to a surprise inspection taken place on 16.10.2025, during which adulterated food was found to be manufactured within the jurisdiction of petitioner who is employed on the post of Food Safety Officer. It is submitted that the suspension order indicates that petitioner while posted in that capacity and in the same area was also complicit with persons who were committing food adulteration.

He, however submits that subsequently a charge sheet dated 28.10.2025 has been served upon petitioner containing three charges but the said charge does not find any mention in the charge sheet at all and the charges in fact pertain only to not responding to direction issued by superior authorities.

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated

WRIA No. 13092 of 2025

2

18.11.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and also appends charge sheet dated 28.10.2025, a perusal of which indicates that the main allegation levelled against petitioner in the suspension order does not find any mention in the charge sheet. Out of three charges levelled against petitioner, charges 1 and 2 pertain to petitioner not responding to directions issued by higher authorities for performing his duties while charge no.3 pertains to allegations levelled by one of the shop keepers of illegal gratification being taken by petitioner but from a person whom he does not know.

In view of aforesaid, prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file their counter affidavit.

List this case on 02.01.2026, as fresh.

Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned suspension order dated 16.10.2025 shall remain stayed. This order however shall not preclude continuance of any enquiry against petitioner.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

November 19, 2025 kvg/-

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