RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. ENERGY LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/2517/2025 · 2025-03-04
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 126616 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 126616 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13003 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2517 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashu Deo Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Saran Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Jyotindra Pathak holding brief of Sri Alok Saran,
learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially a punishment order dated 11.01.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, had been passed against the petitioner against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, which is still pending for consideration. During pendency of the appeal, the order impugned dated 20.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, has been passed whereby recovery has been directed to be made from the salary of the petitioner.
3. The contention is that once the appeal is already pending for consideration before the appellate authority consequently without deciding the said appeal there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have directed for making recovery from the salary of the petitioner.
4. Pendency of the appeal is also not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4.
5. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority who is said to be respondent no.3 i.e. Superintending Engineer to decide the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and the relevant rules which decision would be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. Till then as the respondents themselves have sat over the appeal of the petitioner for a period of more than one year as such no recovery shall be made from the salary of the petitioner till a decision is taken on the appeal.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench