HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14964 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for Respondents-2 to 4. 2. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 8634 of 2025 which was disposed of by following order dated 02.07.2025: "1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Jai Krishna Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent. 2. The petitioner has suffered with a recovery of Rs. 5,95,401 in 29 installments from salary on the ground that without asserting earlier outstanding amount towards the electricity bill granted new connection either to wife or to relatives of the defaulters. 3. According to the impugned order, petitioner was granted opportunity to explain the allegation, however, admittedly, he has not submitted any reply, and, therefore, impugned order dated 23.04.2025 was passed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has not received any notice and subsequent to impugned order, he has filed an explanation along with documents that proper inquiry was conducted before the connections were given. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner refers paragraph 28 of this petition, however, he fairly submits that the said averment was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jai Krishna Upadhyay Rajneesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) not taken when a representation or explanation was submitted subsequent to the impugned order. For Reference paragraph 28 of this writ petition is reproduced hereinafter :- "That it is also submitted that the petitioner has not been served any notice, information in this matter prior to the issuance of office order/memorandum on dated 23.04.2025 having its letter number 756 and being unaware of the aforesaid because it was never served upon the petitioner so any objection could not be raised against the same at prior time, before the passing of the said office order dated 23.04.2025" 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order, however, fairly submits that if the petitioner submits representation along with relevant documents, the concerned respondent will look into the matter, since it is a case of recovery. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, without interfering with impugned order, at this stage, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation/direction that if any explanation is submitted by petitioner within 3 weeks before the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Jhansi, the same will be considered in accordance with law and in case, petitioner has requisite and legally permissible explanation the impugned order may be reviewed or a fresh order be passed." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently petitioner has submitted representation/ reply dated 04.07.2025, however, till date it has not been decided whereas petitioner was put under suspension by a subsequent order dated 15.09.2025. He further submits that aforesaid suspension order was challenged by way of filing Writ-A No. 14831 of 2025, which was disposed of by following order dated 26.09.2025: "1. Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P.Singh on behalf of Jai Krishna Upadhyay and Sri K.K.Rao on behalf of respondents . 2. Petitioner has tried to place his case that he has been put under suspension repeatedly despite earlier this Court has interfered to some extent. WRIA No. 14964 of 2025 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that preliminary inquiry was initiated on the basis of a news report which refers allegations of various default of recovery of outstanding arrears of electricity bills of many consumers and for that petitioner has already suffered departmental inquiry. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this is a continuous default on part of the petitioner and preliminary inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner has also participated, therefore, at this stage Court may not interfere. 5. I have considered the above submissions. 6. In the present case, since there are some disputed facts and the petitioner has still an opportunity to place his case effectively in departmental proceedings, therefore, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that disciplinary inquiry shall be concluded within a period of six weeks with co- operation of petitioner and in case the respondents are not able to conclude the inquiry within the aforesaid period, suspension order will be kept in abeyance. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of." 4. Be that as it may, since this Court has passed an order in earlier round of litigation, therefore, the direction passed therein has to be followed in its letter and spirit. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of that in case within two weeks from today, aforesaid order is not complied with (i.e., direction passed in Writ-A No. 8634 of 2025), the impugned recovery order dated 23.04.2025 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. October 6, 2025 AK WRIA No. 14964 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad