Disposed

Jawahar Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2025WRIA/14765/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged letters recording a pending departmental proceeding despite no chargesheet being served and no Enquiry Officer appointed until after the DPC met. The court held such prima-facie erroneous observations shall not be used adversely to him for promotion; counter affidavit directed.

What did the court decide?

Observations of pendency of departmental proceedings shall not be considered adverse to petitioner for promotion; counter affidavit directed.

Jawahar Singh vs U.P. Power Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 14765 of 2025

Jawahar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Kshemendra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Neerav Chitravanshi, Ran Vijay Singh

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 and perused the record.

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :-

¶13

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 11.12.2025 issued by opposite party no.5, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶14

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to take into consideration the impugned letter dated 11.12.2025 issued by opposite party no.4, while issuing promotion order, promoting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer."

¶15

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the D.P.C. was convened on 20-11-2025 and camouflaging the institution of the proceeding, the petitioner has been suspended on 22-11-2025. He submitted that the suspension order was challenged by the petitioner by way of instituting Writ A No. 13813 of 2025, wherein the following order was passed on 03-12-2025 :-

¶16

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶17

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Lucknow whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension.

¶18

Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the order impugned dated 22.11.2025 has been passed whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension whereas neither any enquiry officer is appointed nor any enquiry is contemplated by virtue of the aforesaid order. He thus submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, such suspension

¶19

WRIA No. 14765 of 2025

¶20

¶21

order does not sustain in the eyes of law.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that he will seek detailed instructions in the matter and will file counter affidavit.

¶23

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it seems that the suspension order dated 22.11.2025 has been passed without appointing any enquiry officer and further no enquiry is contemplated. Thus, the matter requires consideration.

¶24

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶25

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.

¶26

Until further orders, the suspension order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited is hereby stayed.

¶27

Consequences to follow. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. "

¶28

Vide the aforesaid order, this court, as an interim measure, directed that until further orders, the suspension order dated 22-11-2025 shall remain stayed. He also submitted that the order was stayed while observing that the suspension order was passed, but, neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner by that time.

¶29

He submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this court, an order was also passed on 08-12-2025, wherein the petitioner has been reinstated in service, but, in the last line of the order, it has been mentioned that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner shall go on. He next submitted that it is nothing but, to debar the petitioner for consideration of his promotion on the post of the Superintending Engineer and infact uptill the date 20-11-2025 and even on 08-12-2025, no chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner and even till filing of the writ petition, as is stated in paragraph no. 20 of the writ petition.

¶30

Adding his arguments, he submitted that as per the settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs K.V. Janakiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC, 109, it has been held that the date of initiation of the enquiry, would be the date, when the chargesheet is issued to a delinquent employee and therefore, the strong apprehension is there that the petitioner shall be deprieved of the promotion by considering this line, which has been mentioned in the order dated 08-12-2025. He also submitted that in so far as the information which was sought regarding the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the response was given by the Superintending Enginer vide letter dated 11-12-2025 with respect to the petitioner while saying that the process for appointing the Enquiry Officer is under progress and therefore, submission is that the facts mentioned in the letters dated 11-12-2025 and 08-12-2025 are against the settled proposition of law.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the other sides i.e.

¶32

WRIA No. 14765 of 2025

¶33

¶34

Sri Ran Vijay Singh,learned counsel appearing for the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Power Corporation Nigam Ltd. have opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. They submitted that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed vide order 17-12-2025 and they have placed the copy of the order by which the Enquiry Officer has been appointed, which is taken on record and that shall be the part of record. They also submitted that infact the enquiry proceeding is under process and therefore, the writ petition is premature so far as the question of promotion of the petitioner is concerned and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, prima-facie, it is apparent that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22-11-2025, whereafter, the petitioner instituted a writ petition, wherein this court considering the law and facts, as an interim measure, has stayed suspension order.

¶36

After the suspension order was stayed, the order dated 08-12-2025 was passed by the Managing Director and an information has also been furnished by the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 1112-2025.

¶37

The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the D.P.C. has been convened on 20-11-2025 and the promotion is under way and the information, which has been furnished by the Superintending Engineer, has been sought in pursuant to the proceeding of promotion and the fact, which has wrongly been mentioned, might have hampered the promotion of the petitioner.

¶38

This court has gone through the order dated 11-12-2025, particularly, in reference to the D.P.C., which has been convened on 20-11-2025.

¶39

Without entering into the merit of the matter that whether the petitioner is entitled for promotion or not as the same is subject matter of the departmental promotion committee, while deciding the question that whether the letter dated 11-12-2025, which finds mention that the departmental proceeding is pending, it is apparent that admittedly, an enquiry officer has been appointed on 17-12-2025 and the chargesheet was not issued uptill 11-12-2025 and therefore, this cannot be observed or mentioned by any of the authorities that the departmental proceeding is pending against any employee and therefore, the observation which is made in the letter dated 11-122025 as well as in the order dated 08-12-2025, prima-facie, seems to be erroneous and therefore, the observation made, shall not be considered adversial to the petitioner, for the purpose of considering him for promotion.

¶40

Let the detailed Counter Affidavit be filed by the opposite parties

¶41

WRIA No. 14765 of 2025

¶42

¶43

within three weeks.

¶44

Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List this matter after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶45

December 18, 2025 AKS

¶46

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶47

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jawahar Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Singh v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahir Jahan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Shankar Dubey vs Mr. Upendra Gupta, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sultanpur and 3 Others

Abhishek Kumar Gaur and 58 Others vs the State of U.P. and Another

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

M/S Shiv Traders vs State of U.P. and 2 Others