Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25^th October, 2024 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of inquiry proceedings. As per impugned order, it has been alleged that despite the fact that by means of order dated 26^th September, 2024, petitioner was attached to District Mainpuri, he has not joined in pursuance of same and therefore is in violation of U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in fact aforesaid order dated 26 th September 2024 attaching petitioner to District Mainpuri was challenged by her in Writ A No. 10115 of 2024 and was granted interim protection vide order dated 7^th November, 2024. It is therefore submitted that since the order of attachment had been stayed by this Court, there was no occasion for him to have joined at the place of attachment and the impugned suspension order has been passed without application of mind. It is also submitted that till today no charge sheet has been issued to petitioner.

¶14

From the material on record, it appears that in the present writ petition also the petitioner was provided interim protection vide order dated 29^th November, 2024 which is as follows:-

¶15

"1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶16

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2024 by which the petitioner who is working on the post of Senior Homeopathic Medical Officer, has been

¶17

WRIA No. 11378 of 2024

¶18

2

¶19

placed under suspension.

¶20

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that when the petitioner was posted as Senior Homeopathic Medical Officer at State Homeopathic Dispensary, Gangauli in Ayodhya he was attached by means of order dated 26.09.2024 to the State District Homeopathic Hospital, Mainpuri. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of attachment has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ A No. 10115 of 2024 by which after giving opportunity to the respondents, this Court by means of order dated 07.11.2024 had stayed the attachment order. It has been submitted that though the interim order was passed on 07.11.2024 but the copy of the writ petition was given to the respondents on 22.10.2024. It is submitted that on receipt of the said writ petition, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned order of suspension dated 25.10.2024.

¶21

It has further been submitted that the main reason for suspending the petitioner is on account of the fact that she has not complied with the order of attachment dated 26.09.2024.

¶22

Apart from the above, learned counsel for petitioner submits that ordinarily in the order of suspension only the nature of the charges are supposed to be incorporated but in the present case, the respondents have already stated in paragraph No. 3 & 6 that petitioner has been already found to be guilty of non-compliance of the attachment order.

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the facts and further prayed for time to file a counter affidavit.

¶24

In the aforesaid facts of the present case, there is no dispute that this Court has already interfered with regard to the attachment order dated 26.09.2024 and the said order of attachment has been stayed and for the same reason that the petitioner has not complied with the same, she has been placed under suspension. Accordingly, prima facie case for interference is made out considering the fact that the ground on which the attachment order has been made has already been interfered by this Court in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶25

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks from today. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file

¶26

WRIA No. 11378 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

rejoinder affidavit.

¶29

Till the next date of listing, the order of suspension dated 25.10.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶30

List and connect along with Writ A No. 10115 of 2024.

¶31

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶32

Respondents shall also respond to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit."

¶33

It is evident that vide order dated 25.10.2024, it was provided that no coercive measure shall be taken against petitioners of Writ-A No. 10115 of 2024 including petitioner of present petition and order of attachment dated 26.09.2024 was stayed vide order dated 07.11.2024, there was no occasion for them to have passed any order of suspension.

¶34

In view of discussion made herein above, which is evident from the record and could not be disputed in the counter-affidavit dated 11.02.2025, it is thus evident that impugned order of suspension has been passed in violation of interim order passed by this Court in Writ A No. 10115 of 2024.

¶35

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order of suspension dated 25^th October 2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Opposite parties specifically the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Director, Homeopathic, Lucknow or any other competent party is directed to ensure payment of full salary and emoluments to petitioner for the period of suspension. Compliance of this order shall be ensured within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

¶36

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶37

February 10, 2026 lakshman

¶38

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravendra Pal @ Ravendra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Patel and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohammod Afsar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Nagendra Singh, Constable PNO.-080460116 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Affairs U.P. Shasan, Lko. and 4 Others

Bhagauti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Secy., Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another