Vijay Kumar Verma vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Heard Sri Ratnesh Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Utkarsh Tripathi (B/V 0264/2026) holding brief of Shri Shivendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶12

The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶13

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the year-2001 on the post of Technical Assistant as contractual basis and thereafter his services stood regularized in the year-2017. However, the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow, opposite party no. 3 initiating departmental proceedings vide order dated 10.11.2023 owing to the allegation of losses in the rice foodgrains and proceeded to appoint one Shri Kamla Kant, Senior Technical Officer, Lucknow as an inquiry officer. Thereafter on 08.12.2023, a chargesheet came to be issued, the writ petitioner denied the charges while submitting the detailed reply/ objection on 09.01.2024 and thereafter an inquiry report came to be submitted on 03.04.2025 before the disciplinary authority. The writ petitioner tendered his reply/ objection to the inquiry report on 13.05.2025 and thereafter by virtue of the order dated 11.03.2026, an order came to be passed imposing recovery of Rs. 70241.02/-.

¶14

Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

¶15

WRIA No. 3998 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order impugned cannot be sustained even for a single moment, particularly, when there has been violation of principle of natural justice, the entire inquiry proceedings have been conducted in violation of the statutory provisions. Contention is that though the writ petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 09/10.04.2026 Annexure-7 at page-50 of the paper book. Reference whereof has been made in para-15 fifteen of the writ petition along with a stay application which is at page-55 of the paper-book, now recovery has been affected. Submission is that once a stay application appended with the appeal has been preferred then though the appeal may be decided at a later stage in its own pace but the stay application is to be decided as once the recovery would be made then it will tantamount to a situation whereby it will lead to complicity. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement of the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.08.2025 in Writ-A No. 8899 of 2025.

¶18

Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere pendency of an appeal would not be a ground to stay the order which is being appealed off. However, he submits that already stay application is pending and the authority while deciding the appeal has the power implicit to decide the stay application also. According to him, the stay application shall be decided within a period of 15 days in that regard and the appeal within a period of 2 months thereafter.

¶19

Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the Court is of the opinion that since against the punishment order, an appeal has been preferred along with the stay application and the writ petitioner alleges that now recovery is being made though the appeal itself is pending, thus, the petition stand disposed off requiring the appellate authority to decide the stay application by 13.05.2026 and the appeal within a period of 02 months.

¶20

Till the stay application is decided, no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

¶21

For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order and self-attested copy of the writ petition before the authority by 24.04.2026 and the authority shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

¶22

WRIA No. 3998 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶26

April 20, 2026 Ashu

¶27

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Kumar Verma v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Verma v. U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko Thru. Managing Director 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Masih and 2 Others vs Pradeep Masih and 5 Others

Aruna Devi vs Shri Dinesh Kumar, Tehsildar Tehsil Bikapur Distt. Ayodhya

Ved Prakash Saroj and 12 Others vs Bhupendra Singh Distt. Basic Education Officer Pratapgarh

Ashok Kumar vs Iqbal Bahadur Singh and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava vs Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others

Maithli Sharan Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 6 Other