Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Dev. Lko. and Another

Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶13

List thereafter.

¶14

The facts of the instant case have already been set forth in detail in the order dated 27.08.2025 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-

¶15

"1. Heard.

¶16

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 04.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶17

3. The argument is that a perusal of the suspension order would indicate that earlier while the petitioner was working in the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as Drafts Man out of an area of 9600 sq. meter only an area of 1600 sq. meters had been acquired but the authority had proceeded to prepare a lease plan/lay out for the unacquired 8000 sq. meters of land. The plots were also carved out with the result that five allottees who could not get the said plots had filed a petition and the image of the authority was maligned.

¶18

4. The petitioner has been charged of having prepared the lay out plan. The authority has recommended for placing the petitioner under suspension who is now working in the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority since 14.02.2020 and on the basis of the aforesaid the impugned order of suspension has been passed.

¶19

WRIA No. 9656 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 4(1) of The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1999'), categorically provides that it is the appointing authority who is to place the petitioner under suspension and that the suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the government servant are so serious that in the event of they being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty.

¶22

6. The contention is that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that it is only the recommendation of the authority which has been followed in spirit while placing the petitioner under suspension without there being any application of mind on the part of the competent authority.

¶23

7. The further contention is that two other persons namely Sri Praveen Saloniya who was working as Senior Manager in the authority as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dhariwal, who was working as Manager (Civil) in the authority have been charged for the same charges as levelled against the petitioner but by means of order dated 04.06.2025, copies of which have been filed cumulatively as Annexure 10 to the petition, both of them have only been given a warning.

¶24

8. The contention is that there cannot be any discrimination in respondents resorting to suspension inasmuch as once the higher officials who are expected to be at the helm of affairs and who had also approved the lay out plan and signed the lease plan have only been given a warning consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have placed the petitioner under suspension which itself reflects clear discrimination in the eyes of law.

¶25

9. Further contention is that as the petitioner is now working in the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority and the charges pertain to the authority at NOIDA as such there is no occasion for the petitioner to even interfere in the gathering of evidence or for that matter in the departmental proceedings that may be initiated against the petitioner and as such the respondents may not place the petitioner under suspension on that ground also.

¶26

10. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter. List in the next week as fresh. "

¶27

From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that the petitioner who was working as Drafts Man, has been placed under suspension vide order impugned dated 04.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Although various grounds as have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner have already been indicated in the order dated 27.08.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the order nowhere indicates as to whether departmental proceedings are contemplated or pending against the petitioner and consequently, keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of this

¶28

WRIA No. 9656 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P and Ors- 2007 SCC Online All 870, the Division Bench has interfered with the suspension order where it did not contain the aforesaid.

¶31

The argument is that once a perusal of the order impugned does not indicate that the departmental proceedings are contemplated or pending against the petitioner as such, the proposition of law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra) would be attracted in the facts of the instant case and thus the impugned order merits to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶32

On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by the Joint Secretary, Infrastructure and Industrial Development, Government of U.P, Lucknow dated 09.09.2025 is also not able to dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra).

¶33

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra) has held as under:-

¶34

"5. A perusal of Rule 4(1) shows that a government servant can be placed under suspension against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding. A perusal of the entire order of suspension impugned in this writ petition nowhere shows that an inquiry was in contemplation or pending warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. Suspension order has been passed without mentioning as to whether the incumbent is being placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency thereof. The question whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) v. The Chief Medical Officer and Ors. (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057, in which one of us (Hon'ble S.R. Alam, J.) was a member, and it was held as under:

¶35

3. From the said rule it appears that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fad that any inquiry is pending.4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained....

¶36

6. The order of suspension impugned in this writ petition also suffers from the same illegality and, therefore, in our view it cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down in the case of Meera Tiwari (Supra)."

¶37

From a perusal of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra) it clearly emerges that the Division Bench after placing

¶38

WRIA No. 9656 of 2025

¶39

4

¶40

reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Meera Tiwari (smt) Vs. The Chief Medical Officer- (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2057 has held that a Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry yet the impugned order of suspension has to refer to either the inquiry being contemplated or the fact that the inquiry is pending and in absence thereto, the suspension order would be vitiated.

¶41

Further, perusal of the impugned suspension order would indicate that the aforesaid fact does not find mentioned in the suspension order.

¶42

Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case for interference is made out. Accordingly, until further orders of this Court, the impugned suspension order dated 04.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed.

¶43

However, this would be without prejudice to the respondents proceeding with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and taking the said proceeding to its logical conclusion.

¶44

September 10, 2025 Pachhere/-

¶45

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶46

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

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Dev. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Infrastructure and Industrial Dev. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar Maurya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Javed @ Mohd Javed and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Committee of Management Thru. Manager Ram Sharam and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra Kumar Alias Rajendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Karamvir Singh vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies U.P. Lko. and 3 Others