Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13678-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 91 of 2025 Appellant :- Rohit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. (1) Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. (2) The present intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 745 of 2025 under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been partly allowed with the following directions:- "(i) Without interfering in the suspension order, the respondents were directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months. (ii) Unless and until the charges against the petitioner-appellant are found to be proved, the recovery order passed against the petitioner- appellant shall not be given effect to. (iii) In case of conclusion of inquiry, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application under Rule 4(8) of The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 before the authority concerned who shall consider and decide the same,within a period of seven days from the date of its receipt." (3) Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted that looking at the trivial nature of charge, the suspension order ought to have been stayed by the Writ Court. In not doing so, a grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner- appellant. (4) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has submitted that since the Writ Court has directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, besides staying the recovery order passed against him until the charges framed against the appellant-petitioner are proved, therefore, no injustice would be caused on account of placing the petitioner under suspension in the meanwhile. (5) Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment impugned herein, we do not gather any illegality in the order passed by the Writ Court particularly when the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant-petitioner have been directed to be concluded with certain stipulations as stated in paragraph - 2 of this order. To us, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Writ Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. (6) Accordingly, the Special Appeal is rejected. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 6.3.2025 lakshman/Amit K Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench