Poonam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22800

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3691 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Poonam Verma

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra,Priyanshu Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

This Court has passed the order dated 18.04.2025, which reads as under:-

¶9

"1. Heard.

¶10

2. This Court has passed order dated 7.4.2025 which reads as under :

¶11

"1. Heard Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned suspension order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the opposite party No.1.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that earlier the suspension order dated 08.07.2024 was issued against the petitioner and she challenged that suspension order by filing writ petition bearing Writ-A No.12155 of 2024; Poonam Verma vs. State of U.P. & others and the disciplinary proceedings were withdrawn against the petitioner, therefore, the earlier suspension order lost its efficacy. Accordingly, the earlier writ petition was dismissed being infructuous.

¶14

4. Now, the subsequent suspension order dated 31.01.2025 has been issued against the petitioner and the petitioner has not paid subsistence allowance with effect from the date of suspension order.

¶15

5. Let the instructions be sought and, if possible, the short counter affidavit may be filed within a period of ten days.

¶16

6. List this case on 18.04.2025 as fresh. On that date, this matter may be taken up immediately after fresh cases."

¶17

3. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Addl. C.S.C. has provided the copy of instruction letter dated 15.4.2025 preferred by the District Social Welfare Officer of the Directorate of Social Welfare, U.P. wherein it has been indicated that a sum of Rs. 10,70,372/- has been allotted to the petitioner against her subsistence allowance and the required exercise of making such payment is in process. The instruction letter is taken on record.

¶18

4. However, Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid amount has been credited to the account of the petitioner today itself.

¶19

5. In the aforesaid instruction letter nothing has been indicated in respect of service of the charge-sheet inasmuch as while placing the petitioner under suspension the Principal Secretary of the Department has directed the Director concerned to take appropriate steps to serve the charge-sheet to the petitioner along with all relying upon documents within seven days but no such charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. As per impugned suspension order the charge-sheet should have been served upon the petitioner on or before 7.2.2025. The aforesaid reason alone may vitiate the suspension order.

¶20

6. Sri Pankaj Patel prays for and is granted 24 hrs. time to seek complete written instructions on the aforesaid point.

¶21

7. List / put up on 22.4.2025 as fresh.

¶22

8. This matter may be taken up after lunch. "

¶23

At the very outset, Sri Alok Mishra has informed that a sum of Rs. 9,88,772/- has been credited in the account of the petitioner.

¶24

On that Sri Pankaj Patel has stated that the budget to the tune of Rs. 10,70,372/- was allotted in favour of the petitioner but after deducting TDS etc., the aforesaid amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner.

¶25

Today, Sri Pankaj Patel has shown the copy of the detailed instructions along with copy of the charge-sheet dated 21.04.2025 by submitting that the charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner. Sri Patel is not sure as to whether the charge-sheet has been provided to the petitioner or not inasmuch as the charge-sheet is dated 21.04.2005. The copy of the charge-sheet has been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by Sri Patel. Sri Patel has explained about the delay in serving the charge-sheet as the written instructions to that effect has been shown to the Court.

¶26

Be that as it may, since, the charge-sheet has been issued on 21.04.2025 and copy thereof has been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, it is expected from the petitioner to submit a defence reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days and if he is requiring the copy of any relevant document, the same may be asked from the officer/competent authority and the same may be provided to the petitioner forthwith.

¶27

As soon as the petitioner submits defence reply to the chargesheet, the departmental enquiry shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner subject to the proper cooperation of the petitioner with expedition within a period of two months. Thereafter, the copy of the enquiry report, if any,

¶28

may be provided to the disciplinary authority who may pass final order after seeking explanation from the petitioner providing her the copy of the enquiry report, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month.

¶29

It is made clear that if departmental enquiry is not concluded within a period of two months after receiving the defence reply of the petitioner, the impugned suspension order dated 31.01.2025 shall be revoked, however, in that case the departmental enquiry may go on and final order may be passed, strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

The writ petition, is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Anurag

¶32

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

Poonam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare U.P. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suneeta Dhanuk Vs Managing Director Bank of Baroda Head Office Baroda Bhawan R.C. Dutt Road Baroda and 2 Others

Bankey Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Banwari Lal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication and 2 Others

Shiv Mohan Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication Govt. New Delhi and 2 Others

Sarojani Devi and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Rekha Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others