Quashed

Jaswant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2026WRIA/2659/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order removing the petitioner from contractual service and blacklisting him without affording an opportunity of hearing, noting the stigma attached to the action. The court directed the authority to proceed in accordance with law after associating the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 quashed; liberty given to proceed after hearing.

Jaswant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2659 of 2026

Jaswant Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Energy Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Alok Saran

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Alok Saran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 and Shri Asuthosh Misra for the State.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the Personnel Officer, Department of Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Lucknow.

¶12

From the perusal of the order dated 04.11.2025, it is evident that the Personnel Officer has written a letter to the Chief Engineer, Sitapur Region, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., to remove the petitioner from service and he shall also be blacklisted on U.P. P.C.L. Portal.

¶13

Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior passing the order dated 04.11.2025, no opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner. He submitted that in fact there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and all of sudden, the order dated 04.11.2025 has been passed, without assigning any reason and the petitioner has been blacklisted on the portal of U.P.P.C.L. and as the result he would never be appointed, on contractual basis, in the department which permanently affects the right of the petitioner, therefore opportunity of hearing is must.

¶14

WRIA No. 2659 of 2026

¶15

¶16

On the other hand counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the contentions and has placed a copy of the inquiry report before this Court, which is taken on record. Referring the aforesaid preliminary inquiry report, he submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner is not as per the requirement and norms and therefore the Committee recommended for removal of the services of the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that vide the impugned order dated 04.11.2025, passed by the opposite party no.4, the services of the petitioner, has been dispensed with. In fact the petitioner was working on contractual basis, under the provision of a Government Order and the order impugned says that the petitioner shall be blacklisted, on the U.P.P.C.L. Portal. This order makes the petitioner all time ineligible for any kind of appointment in the department as well as it must be stigma over the petitioner and that shall materially hampers his career. It is an admitted fact that the preliminary inquiry is conducted against the petitioner but the petitioner has not been associated and no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner, prior passing the order impugned.

¶18

Consequently the order impugned dated 04.11.2025 is hereby quashed.

¶19

The Authority concerned is given liberty to proceed further in accordance with law, after associating the petitioner.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

March 10, 2026

¶23

Muk

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaswant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jareena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mishrilal Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Om Prakash Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Kallu @ Kalu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jaideep vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another