Smt Deepanjaly Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14103 of 2025

Smt Deepanjaly

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anish Kumar Sinha, Gaurav Dwivedi, Ram Prakash Dwivedi, Vinayak Varma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 6

¶7

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

Vide order dated 23.09.2025, four weeks time is granted to file counter affidavit. Thereafter the matter was listed before the Registrar who vide order dated 21.01.2026 granted two weeks further time to file counter affidavit. Subsequent to the same, the matter was listed before the Court and this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 granted last opportunity to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶10

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order 30.07.2025 passed by the District Probation Officer, Baghpat/respondent No.5, copy of the same is appended as Annexur No.1 to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was terminated making serious allegations against him.

¶11

4.From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 25.07.2016 on the post of Protection Officer and he started working and getting his salary. On 19.07.2025 one Ravi Thakur filed a complaint against the petitioner in respect of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe for facilitating appointment through outsourcing in Mahila Kalyan Vibhag, Baghpat. It is argued that the petitioner had no official authority or role in the process of appointment. A show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2025 by the respondent No.5. Reply to the aforesaid notice has been submitted by the petitioner on 24.07.2025 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. By order dated 24.07.2025, the respondent No.5 informed the petitioner that a committee had been constituted by the District Magistrate,

¶12

WRIA No. 14103 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Baghpat/respondent No.4 for inquiry in the matter of the petitioner.

¶15

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner came to know regarding the constitution of the aforesaid committee, he submitted representations on 25.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 addressed to the respondent No.4 to permit the petitioner to participate in the inquiry. It is argued that without waiting the report of the aforesaid Committee, the District Probation Officer, Baghpat/respondent No.5 passed the order impugned on 30.07.2025 terminating the services of the petitioner. It is argued that the order impugned has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place his explanation regarding the allegations made in the order of termination. It is argued that the order impugned is stigmatic in nature and the same has been passed without waiting the inquiry report of the Committee constituted by the respondent No.4. It is argued that once the committee has been constituted, the respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction or authority to pass order impugned without inquiry report, therefore, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it is clear that for conducting inquiry, a committee had been constituted by the respondent No.4 for inquiry but respondent No.5 without waiting the report of the aforesaid Committee passed the order impugned in hurried manner. Further no notice or opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and the order impugned has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice, the order impugned is liable to be set aside the same is hereby quashed.

¶18

The District Probation Officer, Baghpat/respondent No.5 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter within three month from the date of production of certified copy before him.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.

¶20

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶21

May 14, 2026 saqlain

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Deepanjaly v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Deepanjaly v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Chandra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jw Bhupendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dori Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Poonam Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others