Rajendra Prasad Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Excise, Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 4733 of 2026

¶3

Rajendra Prasad Verma

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Excise, Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 03.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 1 (as contained in Annexure no. 1);

¶12

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to conclude the departmental inquiry initiated by the chargesheet dated 25.10.2025, within a reasonable time.

¶13

(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present matter pertains to an unduly prolonged suspension. It is contended that the impugned suspension order came to be passed on 03.09.2025 and, despite considerable lapse of time, the disciplinary proceedings have yet not reached their logical conclusion. It is further submitted that although the inquiry proceedings stand concluded, no final decision has been taken by the competent disciplinary authority till date, owing to which the petitioner continues to remain under suspension and is facing hardship and prejudice. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the

¶15

WRIA No. 4733 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad in V.N. Daipuria Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 58619 of 2015.

¶18

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition, does not dispute that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner have already concluded. It is, however, submitted that the matter has been referred to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for its opinion/advice and immediately upon receipt of the recommendation of the said Commission, an appropriate final order shall be passed by opposite party no. 1 strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon examination of the material available on record, this Court finds that the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings is not in dispute. Since the disciplinary proceedings have remained pending for a considerable duration even after completion of the inquiry, this Court considers it appropriate to issue necessary directions for early finalization of the matter.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party no. 1 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner with expedition, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that in the event the disciplinary proceedings are not finalized within the aforesaid period, the impugned suspension order shall remain stayed and kept in abeyance till conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶21

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶22

May 11, 2026

¶23

R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Excise, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Excise, Lko. and Another

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

Smt. Madhuri Srivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

Imrah Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Om Chand Yadav (Constable Pno- No. 180500198) and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Smt.Madhu Rani Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Renu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law, Lko. and Another

Jamuna Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Irrigation Lko. and 3 Others