Disposed¶24

Ajay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies (SECTION-2) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026WRIA/784/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

suspension order stayed; charge sheet not issued after one month; vague charges; major penalty; Marketing Inspector; U.P. Food and Civil Supplies; preliminary enquiry slackness; enquiry to conclude within three months; interim order writ petition; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; February 3, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: suspension order dated 31.12.2025 stayed till next date of listing; counter affidavit within three weeks and rejoinder a week thereafter; enquiry to be concluded within three months from production of certified copy of the order; petitioner to co-operate with the enquiry, failing which the Department may seek vacation of the interim order. Final adjudication deferred ('the matter requires thorough consideration'). ¶24

Ajay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies (SECTION-2) Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 31.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is liable to be quashed, given the contentions that the charges are vague, do not warrant major penalty, and no charge sheet has been served on the petitioner. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Prima facie, the charge sheet has not been issued against the petitioner even after passing of more than one month since the suspension order.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the nature of the charges is not such as would lead to major punishment.

¶19

Key takeaways

Respondents directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks.ratio¶21
Learned counsel for the petitioner granted a week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.ratio¶22
The suspension order dated 31.12.2025 passed by respondent no.2 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 18, Shree Prakash Singh, J., February 3, 2026, in WRIT - A No. 784 of 2026 (Ajay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and others). A Marketing Inspector appointed on 6.10.2016 was placed under suspension by order dated 31.12.2025 of respondent no.2. The petitioner contended that the charges were vague, were not such as to warrant major penalty, and that no charge sheet had been served. The Court prima facie observed that more than a month after suspension no charge sheet had been issued, and that the nature of the charges was not such as would lead to major punishment, holding that the matter required thorough consideration. Interim relief granted: suspension order stayed till next listing; counter affidavit within three weeks, rejoinder a week thereafter; enquiry to conclude within three months of production of certified copy of the order; petitioner to co-operate with the enquiry, failing which the respondent Department may move for vacation of the interim order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 784 of 2026

Ajay Kumar Verma

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies (Section-2) Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jiyauddeen, Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed assailing the suspension order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.2.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Marketing Inspector on 6.10.2016 and he kept on working to the best satisfaction of his superiors and his career remained unblemished throughout his past services.

¶14

He further submitted that vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, all of a sudden, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, though the charges mentioned in the suspension order are not as such which would warrant major penalty. Further submission is that the charges are prima facie apparent from the suspension order that those are vague in the nature, and further no charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner. He also submitted that putting the petitioner under suspension is nothing but harassment, therefore, suspension order may be quashed.

¶15

Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the preliminary enquiry was got done and it was found that there is slackness on the part of the petitioner. He submitted that the charge sheet shall be issued in very shortest period of time to the petitioner. Thus, submission is that the

¶16

WRIA No. 784 of 2026

¶17

¶18

petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

¶19

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie it is apparent that the charge sheet has not been issued against the petitioner after passing of more than one month. This Court also prima facie finds that nature of the charges are not as such, which would lead to the major punishment.

¶20

In view of the above, the matter requires thorough consideration.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

List thereafter.

¶24

Till the next date of listing, the suspension order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 shall remain stayed.

¶25

It is provided that the enquiry proceedings shall be concluded within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶26

It is further provided that the petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry proceedings failing which the respondent Department would be at liberty to move proper application for vacation of the interim order.

¶27

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶28

February 3, 2026 Ram Murti

¶29

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

Ajay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies (SECTION-2) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies (SECTION-2) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 3 Others

Sohbat Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Rajendra Nath Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Akash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Ram Janm Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Suraj @ Karamveer and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.