Disposed¶14

Amit Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025WRIA/1728/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

suspension order revocation; time-bound departmental enquiry 15 days; enquiry not concluded despite charge-sheet served and reply submitted; conditional revocation of suspension without prejudice to further action; petitioner's non-cooperation period excluded; undertaking by respondents' counsel recorded; WRIT - A 1728 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2025:AHC-LKO:9573; Abdul Moin J.; 14.2.2025

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: enquiry to be concluded within 15 days as undertaken by counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; failing which the suspension order dated 12.05.2023 shall stand revoked without prejudice to further action; petitioner directed to cooperate, with the period of non-cooperation excluded. ¶14

Amit Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Sectt. Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 12.05.2023 should be set aside on the ground that, despite service of the charge-sheet and submission of the petitioner's reply, the respondents failed to conclude the enquiry proceedings.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court recorded the statement of learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 that the inquiry shall be concluded positively within a period of 15 days from today.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

If the enquiry is not completed within 15 days from today as stated by counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, the impugned suspension order shall stand revoked, without prejudice to any further action the respondents may take against the petitioner in pursuance of the enquiry.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings; in case he does not cooperate, the Inquiry Officer may inform him in writing of the non-cooperation, and the period of non-cooperation will be excluded from the 15-day period.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 1728 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:9573, decided 14.2.2025 by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.) challenging a suspension order dated 12.05.2023 on the ground that, although the charge-sheet had been served and the petitioner had submitted his reply, the respondents failed to conclude the disciplinary enquiry. The Court recorded counsel's statement for respondents No.2 to 4 that the inquiry would be concluded positively within 15 days, and provided that if the enquiry was not completed within that period, the impugned suspension order would stand revoked without prejudice to further action in pursuance of the enquiry. The petitioner was directed to cooperate; on non-cooperation, the Inquiry Officer may inform him in writing and the period of non-cooperation would be excluded from the stipulated period. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9573

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1728 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Amit Prakash

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No.1, Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 to 4 and Shri Piyush Kishore, holding brief of Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶8

2 . Under challenge is the suspension order dated 12.05.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶9

3 . Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid suspension order and charge-sheet having been served on the petitioner and the petitioner having submitted his reply, the respondents have failed to conclude the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner consequently the suspension order merits to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶10

4 . On the other hand, Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 states that on account of non cooperation of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings and he having absented himself enquiry proceedings could not be concluded but states that the inquiry shall be concluded positively within a period of 15 days from today.

¶11

Aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶12

5 . It is further provided that in case the enquiry is not completed within 15 days from today as stated by the learned counsel for the

¶13

respondents No.2 to 4, impugned suspension order shall stand revoked without prejudice to the further action that may be taken by the respondents against the petitioner in pursuance of the enquiry.

¶14

6 . With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶15

7 . Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings and in case the petitioner does not cooperate, the Inquiry Officer would be at liberty to inform the petitioner in writing about his non-cooperation and the period of non-cooperation would be excluded from the aforesaid period.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Energy Sectt. Lko and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdhash Kumar Vs U.P. Seed Development Corporation Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others

Dr. Om Prakash Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Education and 6 Others

Ishwar Chandra Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 3 Others

Neelam Reddy and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Shobharam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko.