Atul Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Heard Mr. Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶11

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶12

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 11.11.2025 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension on the post of Basic Education Officer in contemplation of departmental proceedings.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was in fact a member of Committee for the purposes of procurement of furniture and was not the sole person involved in the decision making process. It is further submitted that approval of District Magistrate concerned had been taken at every stage of the proceedings and therefore it is not as if petitioner was acting in an individual capacity. It is also submitted that a perusal of impugned order will also make it evident that the only allegation levelled against petitioner is of negligence, which does not amount to misconduct under Service Rules and therefore there was no occasion for petitioner to be suspended. It is also submitted that impugned order therefore is in violation of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He further submits that the complainant M/s

¶14

WRIA No. 13790 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Neeman Seating Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has not responded to a show cause notice issued earlier and was recommended for black-listing and therefore the proceedings instituted against petitioner in pursuance of complaint made by said firm is in fact malafide. It is thus submitted that proceedings against petitioner are an offshoot of action taken by petitioner against complainant.

¶17

Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 09.12.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and on that basis refutes submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that although the Committee has taken all the relevant decisions but the documentation furnished before the Committee for purposes of taking decision were in fact supplied by petitioner and were tailor-made to suit a particular firm. He has reiterated the allegations levelled against petitioner as indicated in impugned order.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the grounds taken by petitioner particularly the fact that he has been targeted due to action taken against complainant earlier and that all the relevant records were in fact approved by District Magistrate concerned, would require examination by enquiry officer.

¶19

In the considered opinion of this Court, at the stage of challenge to suspension order, it would be inappropriate for this Court to examine the factual aspects and record a finding thereupon, which would be a subject matter of enquiry.

¶20

Since admittedly, charge sheet has not yet been issued to petitioner, the opposite parties are directed to prepare and issue charge sheet to petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today to which at least 15 days' time shall be granted to petitioner to file response. The enquiry proceedings themselves are required to be concluded expeditiously within a period of four months from the last date when petitioner is required to submit his reply. Aforesaid time-frame shall be subject to cooperation of

¶21

WRIA No. 13790 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

petitioner in enquiry proceedings.

¶24

With aforesai d direction(s), the petition stands finally disposed of .

¶25

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶26

December 10, 2025

¶27

kvg/-

¶28

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

Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addi. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt.Lko. and Another

Mohd. Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Saurabh Chandra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Pratap Vs Director Sports , Sports Directorate U.P. Khel Bhawan , Lko. and 3 Others

Sandhya Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agri. Lko and 4 Others

Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others