Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4077 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 832 of 2025 Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Arti Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by S.D.M./competent authority whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. In the order of suspension, it is recorded that in a question put up before the State Legislature, a query was made with regard to status of the land situated on Gata No. 1162M/0.250 hectare, Village Auras, a report was submitted by the petitioner on 10.12.2024 that the land is under illegal occupation and when a reply was sought from the petitioner in this regard, he has submitted that on 13.12.2024, the vacant possession of the said plot has been handed over to Smt. Sukhdei and others who are the patta holders and also bhumidhars of the said land. 3. It was noticed that the petitioner had given contradictory reply which has adversely effected the image of the senior government officials and accordingly even a reply was sought from the petitioner which was not found to be satisfactory and therefore a disciplinary inquiry has been sought to be initiated against him. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that the said allegation is false and in support of his contentions has relied upon various documents and photographs to indicate facts with regard to the possession of the land. 5. Apart from the above, another charge has been levelled upon the petitioner according to which the matter pertaining to correction of map was pending before him for six months in exercise of powers under Section 36 of U.P. Revenue Code but the petitioner has never forwarded and submitted a report in this regard. 6. The second charge pertains to not passing of appropriate orders with regard to correction of map submitted under Section 36 of U.P. Revenue Code, in this regard, the defence of the petitioner is that he acted upon the said matter with due diligence. 7. From the above, it is noticed that there are allegations with regard to dereliction of duties of the petitioner which deserves to be inquired into and all the defence which has been raised before this Court, the petitioner should place all these before the disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage. It has been submitted that till date even after expiry of nearly three weeks charge-sheet has not been given to the petitioner. 8. Considering the contention of the petitioner, it is noticed that the same involves a disputed question of fact with regard to the possession of the disputed land. Such an issue can adequately be decided after adducing evidence before the disciplinary authority and in any view of the matter, this Court cannot return a finding or adjudicate the lis between the parties in a petition where the suspension of authority has been assailed. 9. In case the charge of dereliction of duties are approved, needless to say the petitioner can be saddled with a major penalty, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of suspension. On the other hand, this Court does not approve the conduct of the respondents inasmuch as they are not given the charge-sheet to the petitioner even on expiry of three weeks. 10. In light of the above, without interfering into impugned order, it is provided that the respondents should submit a charge-sheet to the petitioner within a maximum period of two weeks from today and they should conclude the inquiry within a maximum period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. It is further provided that in case the inquiry proceeding is concluded within the time prescribed, the petitioner will have liberty to move an application under Rule 4(8) of the U.P. Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and in case such an application is made the competent authority shall pass necessary orders within one week thereafter in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench