Disposed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others v. Head Constable 982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025WRIA/13193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued notice in a writ petition challenging the State Public Services Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had set aside disciplinary punishment for unauthorized absence, reasoning that punishing a sick employee violated natural justice. The High Court found these observations 'dehors the law' and stayed the impugned order.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13193 of 2025

¶3

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Head Constable 982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶11

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶13

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and
Order Dated:08.07.2025, passed by the Ld. State
Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow
in Claim Petition no.793 of 2024 (Head
Constable-982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari Versus
State of U.P. and Others) and contained in
Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition."

¶14

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was posted at Special Branch of Intelligence Department, Lucknow with effect from 30.05.2012. During his posting, he proceeded on 20 days of earned leave starting with effect from 11.12.2021. At the end of leave period, he was supposed to rejoin his duties on 31.12.2021, but without any intimation to the Authorities and without prior sanction of leave, he remained absent from his official duty. No intimation was given at all.

¶15

4. A preliminary enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry, which was fact finding in nature, the wife of the respondent had alleged that the respondent had maintained a relationship outside marriage with one lady

¶16

WRIA No. 13193 of 2025

¶17

¶18

in Raebareli and he stayed there most of the time. After several notices were issued to the respondent fixing date for recording of his statement, he did not choose to join the enquiry. He did not provide any medical report/ prescription. He did not give any representation to justify his absence. He only dispatched a blood test report.

¶19

5. The preliminary enquiry found the petitioner guilty and on the basis of the report dated 06.04.2022 by an order dated 22.04.2022, the respondent was suspended under Rule 17 of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, in contemplation of regular departmental enquiry against him. The respondent was attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police (Regional), Agra. The respondent filed Writ-A No.21833 of 2022: Ajit Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Others, challenging the suspension order. The Court was pleased to stay the suspension order by its order dated 27.02.2023. On the basis of such order passed by this Court, he was reinstated in services and he joined on 20.03.2022.

¶20

6. The departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991 proceeded and concluded with a finding that from 31.12.2021 to 20.07.2022 the respondent had remained absent without any authorization for a total period of 202 days. The respondent was punished by the order dated 16.06.2023 and instead of proposed punishment in the show-cause notice of dismissal, he was reduced in pay scale to a lower scale for a period of three years. The Appeal of the respondent was rejected by an order dated 09.10.2023. In order to regularize his period of unauthorized absence for the purpose of service book alone, he was sent for medical examination to the office of the Chief Medical Officer, who constituted a Medical Board which recommended grant of medical leave of 158 days on 01.02.2023.

¶21

7. The respondent challenged the order of punishment and the order rejecting his Appeal in Claim Petition No.793 of 2024: Head Constable982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others . The Tribunal did not find any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the departmental enquiry. However, it has interfered in the punishment order by observing that the Medical Board had found him to be sick and had recommended

¶22

WRIA No. 13193 of 2025

¶23

¶24

grant of 158 days of medical leave, and therefore, awarding punishment to such an employee would amount to " violation of principles of natural justice ".

¶25

8. This Court having perused the judgement and order impugned finds the observations as totally dehors the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶26

9. The matter requires consideration.

¶27

10. Issue notice to the respondent.

¶28

11. Let steps be taken by the petitioners within a week both ways and file an affidavit of service within a period of two weeks.

¶29

12. List this case on 15.12.2025.

¶30

13. Till the next date of listing, the order impugned shall remain stayed.

¶31

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 15, 2025

¶32

Rahul

¶33

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others v. Head Constable 982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others v. Head Constable 982470365 Ajit Kumar Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Srivastava vs Lucknow Development Authority Pradhikaran Bhawan Lucknow Thru. Vice Chairman and 4 Others

Sukhdei vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communications, Deptt. of Posts and 2 Others vs Bachan Prasad Yadav

Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Dhq Po New Delhi and 2 Others vs Gp. Capt. Kamal Narayan Yadav (Retd) (20190-T)

Priyanka Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Distt. Magistrate and 2 Others