Satya Prakash Tripathi (Personal Assistant Grade II ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satya Prakash Tripathi (Personal Assistant Grade II ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief granted pending adjudication: impugned suspension order dated 25.09.2024 stayed until further orders, while leaving opposite parties free to initiate disciplinary proceedings; two weeks granted to State Counsel for filing counter affidavit; case listed for 28.07.2025. Final adjudication deferred.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension of the petitioner under order dated 25.09.2024 (in contemplation of departmental enquiry) is justified and sustainable. +2 more

Court's answer

Prima facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner (including reliance on the cited judgments against indefinite suspension) appear to have force and require consideration.

Ratio / Principle

Until further orders of this Court, the impugned suspension order dated 25.09.2024 shall remain stayed.

Key takeaways

The interim stay does not preclude the opposite parties from initiating disciplinary proceedings against petitioner.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 18, WRIT - A No. - 6872 of 2025 (single-judge interim order of Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J., dated 9.7.2025). Satya Prakash Tripathi (Personal Assistant Grade II) challenges suspension order dated 25.09.2024 placing him under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. His earlier suspension on the same allegations (order dated 24.07.2024) had already drawn a judgment dated 05.09.2024 in WRIT - A No. - 7453 of 2024 allowing the petition for want of recorded satisfaction by the appointing authority as to seriousness of allegations/major penalty; the fresh suspension order was nonetheless passed on 25.09.2024, reportedly at the instance of a letter dated 11.06.2024 of the District Magistrate, Barabanki, containing general allegations across various districts and an underlying salary-demand dispute, with no charge-sheet served (a May, 2025 delivery attempt was refused by petitioner). Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 and Kesh Karan SIngh Chauhan v. State of U.P. (02.08.2013, coordinate Bench), counsel argued petitioner cannot be held under suspension interminably without initiating enquiry. Court found submissions prima facie to have force, granted two weeks for counter affidavit, listed the matter for 28.07.2025, and stayed the suspension order until further orders without precluding initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38836

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6872 of 2025

Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Tripathi (Personal Assistant Grade Ii ) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranav Agarwal,Anumita Chandra,Km. Vasundhara Mathur

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

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

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.09.2024 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry.

It has been submitted that earlier as well petitioner had been suspended from service on same allegations vide order dated 24.07.2024 which was challenged in WRIT - A No. - 7453 of 2024. The said petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 primarily on ground that there was no satisfaction recorded by appointing authority with regard to seriousness of the allegations levelled against petitioner or that it would entail major penalty. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, fresh impugned suspension order has been passed way back on 25.09.2024 but petitioner has not yet been served with any charge sheet.

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that impugned order even otherwise has been passed at the instance of letter dated 11.06.2024 sent by District Magistrate, Barabanki, requiring disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against petitioner and therefore submits that even in the present impugned order, no independent application of mind is evident at the instance of appointing authority. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that not only general allegations pertaining to present place of posting of petitioner have been levelled but general allegations pertaining to his posting in various other Districts during his service tenure also finds mention. As such, it is submitted that impugned order has been passed on extraneous grounds. It is further submitted that impugned order also makes it evident that primary dispute pertains to demand of salary by petitioner earlier. She has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as judgment rendered on 02.08.2013 by a coordinate Bench of

this Court in Kesh Karan SIngh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others [Writ A No.48324 of 2011] to submit that petitioner cannot be kept under suspension interminably without initiating enquiry.

Learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that earlier in May, 2025, efforts were made to serve petitioner with charge-sheet which was refused to be accepted by him. He currently does not have any instruction as to whether charge-sheet has been served upon petitioner or not as yet.

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner appear to have force and require consideration particularly in view of judgments relied upon above.

Considering aforesaid, learned State Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List this case on 28.07.2025.

Until further orders of this Court, impugned suspension order dated 25.09.2024 shall remain stayed. This however does not preclude the opposite parties from initiating any disciplinary proceedings against petitioner.

Order Date :- 9.7.2025

kvg/-

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