Vandana vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vandana vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay of operation of the suspension order dated 01.03.2026 until further orders; opposite parties granted four weeks to file counter affidavit; case listed in the week commencing 20.04.2026; stay expressly not to preclude initiation or conclusion of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether any misconduct is made out against the petitioner (Regional Transport Officer) on the allegations in the impugned suspension order, given that she was allegedly not assigned any role of inspecting the school bus involved in the incident of 28.02.2026 and any negligence would at best be that of the Inspecting Officers. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner have force and require consideration; the opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

Until further orders of the Court, operation of the impugned suspension order dated 01.03.2026 shall remain stayed; however, the stay shall not preclude initiation or conclusion of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Mathur, J.), WRIT - A No. 3047 of 2026, Vandana v. State of U.P. (decided March 20, 2026): The petitioner, a Regional Transport Officer, was placed under suspension by order dated 01.03.2026 in contemplation of departmental inquiry, following an incident of 28.02.2026 in which the floor of a school bus gave way, causing the death of a child travelling in the bus. Counsel for the petitioner contended that no allegation attributed direct responsibility to the petitioner, that any negligence was at best that of the Inspecting Officers who were assigned inspection of the school bus, and that accordingly no misconduct was made out. Observing that the submissions prima facie had force and required consideration, and noting that the State's written instructions did not address the aspects raised, the Court granted the opposite parties four weeks to file a counter affidavit, listed the case in the week commencing 20.04.2026, and directed that until further orders the operation of the impugned suspension order dated 01.03.2026 shall remain stayed, while making clear that the interim order shall not preclude initiation or conclusion of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Interim order; final merits left open.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 3047 of 2026

Vandana

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Transport Lko. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ritika Singh, Shhreiya Agarawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard Mr.Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ritika Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 01.03.2026 whereby she has been placed under suspension from service in contemplation of departmental inquiry.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of impugned order will reveal that she has been suspended from service on the post of Regional Transport Officer on the allegation that an unfortunate incident took place on 28.02.2026 when the floor of a school bus gave way leading to untimely demise of a child travelling within the bus.

It is submitted that although incident is quite unfortunate but there is no allegation that petitioner as Regional Transport Officer (RTO) was directly responsible for the aforesaid unfortunate incident. It is submitted that at best, the aspect alluded to the impugned order would indicate negligence that too only on the part of Inspecting Officers and not the petitioner who was not assigned any role of inspecting the school bus. It is therefore submitted that no misconduct is made out from the allegations levelled against her.

Although learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions, but are not with regard to the aspects raised by

WRIA No. 3047 of 2026

2

petitioner.

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List this case in the week commencing 20.04.2026.

Until further orders of this Court, operation of the impugned order dated 01.03.2026 shall remain stayed. It is however made clear that this order shall not preclude initiation or conclusion of inquiry proceedings against petitioner.

March 20, 2026 lakshman

(Manish Mathur,J.)

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