Disposed¶28

Ashesh Srivastava v. U.P. State of Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2026WRIA/2768/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rule 51 Model Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules; four-year limitation for initiating departmental enquiry; charge sheet after retirement; delayed departmental proceedings; U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd.; Assistant Engineer (Civil); certiorari and mandamus; interim stay of charge sheet; premature writ petition objection; enquiry officer; WRIT-A 2768 of 2026; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh J.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: until further orders, the effect and operation of the charge sheet dated 23.9.2025 shall remain stayed; respondents to file counter affidavit within three weeks; rejoinder affidavit permitted a week thereafter; matter to be listed thereafter. Final relief (quashing) not yet decided. ¶28

Ashesh Srivastava vs U.P. State of Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 23.9.2025 and the consequential departmental proceedings are liable to be quashed because the enquiry was initiated more than four years after the alleged incident dated 27.1.2021, contrary to Rule 51 of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Prima facie, under Rule 51 of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules no enquiry can be instituted after four years from the date of the incident; the court found force in the petitioner's contention and kept the matter for consideration, leaving the issue open.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, until further orders, the effect and operation of the charge sheet dated 23.9.2025 against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶28

Key takeaways

On the admitted dates, the incident was of 27.1.2021 and the charge sheet was issued on 23.9.2025, i.e., after four years of the incident.obiter¶20
There appeared to be force in the petitioner's contention, and the matter was directed to be considered, with counter affidavit and rejoinder called for.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 2768 of 2026 (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) — A retired Assistant Engineer (Civil) of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., who retired on 30.06.2021, challenged a charge sheet dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Joint Managing Director (Planning)/Enquiry Officer under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5 and Rules 50 and 51 of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, relating to an alleged incident dated 27.1.2021. Invoking Rule 51 (under which, as recorded by the court, no enquiry can be instituted after four years from the date of the incident), the petitioner contended the initiation was time-barred. The court found prima facie force in the contention since the charge sheet issued on 23.9.2025 was admittedly beyond four years of the incident, directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three weeks (rejoinder a week thereafter), and stayed the effect and operation of the charge sheet dated 23.9.2025 until further orders. Final determination of the limitation objection was left open. The respondents' prematurity objection (objection available before the enquiry officer) was noted but not decided.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2768 of 2026

Ashesh Srivastava

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. State Of Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

o. n ers		.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Prashant Kumar, Tiwari	Sarvesh	Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Shishir Jain

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶12

"i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned charge sheet served vide order No. 408/ ??? ???? ??? (??) / ???? /25 dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Joint Managing Director (Planning)/Enquiry Officer, Respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby an inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5, and Rules 50 and 51 of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules;

¶13

ii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the opposite parties from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned charge sheet dated 23.09.2025 against the petitioner;"

¶14

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and he worked in the Department to the best satisfaction of his superior and his conduct was always above board, throughout his service period and the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021 and, all of a sudden, on 23.9.2025, the charge-sheet has been served upon him for an alleged incident dated 27.1.2021. He

¶15

WRIA No. 2768 of 2026

¶16

¶17

submitted that the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules is applicable to the employee of the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that from Rule 51 thereof, it is apparent that the departmental proceedings/enquiry can be initiated if the incident is not of more than four years and so far as the present case is concerned, after the period of four years, the departmental proceedings have been initiated, vide charge-sheet served upon the petitioner whereas no enquiry could have been initiated after passing of four years from the date of the alleged incident.

¶18

Adding his arguments, he submitted that under the Rules, no proceedings could have been initiated and, therefore, issuing the charge sheet on 23.02.2026, is impermissible, after four years and, as such, submission is that the charge sheet dated 23.9.2025 and the consequential proceedings may be quashed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. submits that the petitioner can take objection before the enquiry officer while submitting his objection and, therefore, the present petition is premature.

¶20

Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that as per Rule 51 of the Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, no enquiry can be instituted after passing of four years from the date of incident and, admittedly, the date of incident is 27.1.2021 and the charge sheet has been issued on 23.9.2025, which is after four years of the incident.

¶21

In view of the above, there seems to be force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, thus, matter requires consideration.

¶22

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶23

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List thereafter.

¶25

Until further orders, the effect and operation of the charge sheet

¶26

WRIA No. 2768 of 2026

¶27

¶28

dated 23.9.2025 against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

March 13, 2026 AKS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashesh Srivastava v. U.P. State of Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashesh Srivastava v. U.P. State of Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. M.D. Lko. and 2 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

Similar cases

Meenakshi Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Secy. Energy. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shubham Gupta vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Sagar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Development and Nutrition, Lko. and 6 Others

Dr. Rajesh Rai and 43 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan Vibhag Lko. and 7 Others

Bajrang Lal Pandey and 28 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 12 Others