Disposed¶21

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025WRIA/14448/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ A No.14448 of 2025, Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt.), decided 15.12.2025 by Manish Mathur, J., Lucknow Bench. Keywords: suspension order stay; departmental proceedings; contradictory allegations in suspension order; malice in law; transfer/attachment without inquiry; interim stay pending counter affidavit; State counsel C.S.C.; next listing week commencing 19.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief: operation of the impugned suspension order dated 08.12.2025 stayed until further orders; opposite parties granted four weeks to file counter affidavit; matter listed in the week commencing 19.01.2026; disciplinary proceedings expressly not precluded. ¶21

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned suspension order dated 08.12.2025, alleged to contain contradictory allegations (harassment of businessmen on account of inspections, versus failure to take effective steps to curb food adulteration), calls for judicial consideration. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Prima facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner have force and require consideration; the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Until further orders of the Court, operation of the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶21

Key takeaways

The interim order shall not preclude initiation, continuance or conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / interim order (Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court, Manish Mathur, J., 15.12.2025): Writ petition challenging suspension order dated 08.12.2025 issued in contemplation of departmental proceedings against a Food Safety and Drug Administration officer. Petitioner contended the suspension order contained mutually contradictory allegations (harassment of businessmen for inspections versus failure to curb food adulteration), and that suspension was passed on 08.12.2025, the very date on which the Court stayed his earlier attachment order dated 27.10.2025 (challenged in Writ A No.14037 of 2025), suggesting malice in law. Court found the submissions prima facie meriting consideration, granted the State four weeks to file counter affidavit, and stayed operation of the suspension order until further orders while clarifying that disciplinary proceedings may nonetheless be initiated, continued and concluded. Matter listed in the week commencing 19.01.2026. Interim order only; no final adjudication on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14448 of 2025

Arvind Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Singh, Aditya Singh, Ashok Kumar Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and
learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶12

1A. Learned State counsel has been provided
written instructions dated 12.12.2025, a copy of
which is taken on record.

¶13

2. Petition has been filed challenging order
dated 08.12.2025 whereby he has been placed under
suspension in contemplation of departmental
proceedings.

¶14

3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of
the impugned order will make it evident that it
contains contradictory allegations against
petitioner. On one hand, it alleges harassment of
business men on the ground of inspections taken
place by petitioner and on the other hand it
levels an allegation that petitioner is not
taking effective steps to curb adulteration of
food.

¶15

4. It is submitted that earlier petitioner had

¶16

WRIA No. 14448 of 2025

¶17

¶18

been attached to another place by means of order
dated27.10.2025, which was without initiation of
inquiry. The said order was challenged in Writ A
No.14037 of 2025 and was stayed by means of order
dated 08.12.2025. It is submitted that impugned
order of suspension has thereafter been passed on
the same date itself indicating malice in law.

¶19

5 . Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

¶20

6. List this case in week commencing 19.01.2026.

¶21

7. Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned order dated 08.12.2025 shall remain stayed.

¶22

8. However, this order shall not preclude
initiation, continuance or conclusion of any
disciplinary proceedings against petitioner.

¶23

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶24

December 15, 2025 Subodh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Vs U.O.I.Thru Secy.Communications Ministry Newdelhi and Ors.

Rizwanullah Qidwai Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Education Deptt.and Ors.

Dhirendra Singh Vs Govt. of U.P.Thru Pradhan Sachiv Parivahan Vibhag and Ors.

Archana Saini vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Prerana Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education Research and 2 Others