Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32934 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19795 of 2024 Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. The order of suspension dated 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. On 27.02.2025, this Court passed following order:- "1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C.S.C. for the State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 1 3. Apart from many other grounds, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned suspension order has been passed without contemplation of inquiry which is bad in terms of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as well as judgment of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59703 of 2007 (Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and other). He also pointed out that in the judgment of Radhey Shyam Srivastava(Supra), it is held that even in case of service of charge sheet after suspension, that would not make the deficiency good. Therefore, impugned suspension order is bad and liable to be set aside. 4. At this stage, learned A.C.S.C. prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instruction about the matter and also produce judgments occupying the filed, if required. 5. Put up as fresh on 06.03.2025 among top 10 cases". 3. Today when the matter has been taken up, learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court instructions dated 05.03.2025 received from the respondents, is taken on record. It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that charge sheet dated 18.12.2024 has already been served upon petitioner, hence the present writ petition has become infructuous. 4. In response to the same, it is argued by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet dated 18.12.2024 was received by the petitioner on 15.01.2025 and immediately thereafter reply was submitted by him on 17.01.2025 but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter. In this regard placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava Versus State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59703 of 2007, decided on 04.12.2007. Relevant para no. 8 is extracted below:- "8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that as per instructions charge sheet is under preparation and, therefore, it should be deemed that the impugned order of suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, is concerned, suffice it to mention that the validity of an order has to be judged for the reasons, if any, contained in the order itself and not for any material which may be supplied by way of an affidavit or after receiving instructions etc. The order otherwise invalid cannot be validated by furnishing reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Govardhan Das Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, the Apex Court held as under: ...............We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." 5. On the basis of aforesaid, it is argued by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner that since impugned suspension order has been passed without contemplation of inquiry, which is bad in terms of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 as well as judgment of Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59703 of 2007 (Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and other), same cannot be made good, as such order of suspension order is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of order of suspension, it is clear that same has been passed without contemplation of the inquiry, hence same is bad in terms of Rule-4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The aforesaid facts has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (Supra). 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, the impugned order of suspension dated 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The suspension order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order, if they so decide in respect to suspension of petitioner, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad