Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18487 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3412 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajeev Saxena Alias Rajeev Kumar Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitesh Jha,Dr. Shailendra Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Shitesh Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 3 and Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.4, same is taken on record. 2. Since opposite party No.2 has not been impleaded with proper details therefore, there is no need to issue notice to opposite party No.2. 3. The order under challenge is a suspension order dated 22.11.2024 passed by opposite party No.3 placing the petitioner under suspension. In the impugned suspension order, the disciplinary authority has indicated that the petitioner has been held guilty on the basis of one inquiry report dated 16.11.2024 conducted by Deputy General Manager Accounts of the Bank. One Sri Chandrika Prasad, Additional District Cooperative Officer, Tehsil Sadar and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, Deputy General Manager Accounts of the Bank of the District Cooprative Bank, Shahjahanpur have been appointed Inquiry Officers with the direction that the Inquiry Officer shall submit its report within fifteen days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when the petitioner has already been held guilty pursuant to the inquiry report dated 16.11.2024, then no purpose would be served placing the petitioner under suspension inasmuch as the employee may be placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry, to arrive on conclusion as to whether the employee is guilty for the allegation or not, but if, he has already been held guilty, the very purpose of suspension order would defeat. He has further submitted that more than four months and fifteen days' have passed, the petitioner has not been given charge-sheet, whereas the inquiry should have been conducted and concluded within a period of fifteen days in terms of the suspension order. 5. On the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for District Cooperative Bank has submitted that prior to passing the impugned order of suspension dated 22.11.2024, the petitioner is running absent since 13.11.2024, as he allegedly met with an accident. 6. Sri Ran Vijay Singh has informed that after the impugned suspension order, two letters dated 10.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 issued to the petitioner to participate in the departmental inquiry but he did not turn up. However, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has fairly submitted that the impugned suspension order is not happily worded inasmuch as in the suspension order it should have not been indicated that the petitioner has already been held guilty. As per Sri Singh, instead of indicating in the impugned order that the inquiry will be concluded within a period of fifteen days, it should have been indicated that the petitioner would be given charge-sheet within a period of fifteen days and thereafter the inquiry will be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material evidence available on record, the impugned suspension order dated 22.11.2024 is hereby set- aside/quashed only for the reasons that in the suspension order it should have not been indicated that the petitioner has already been held guilty but only this much could have been indicated that on the basis of fact finding inquiry report/preliminary inquiry, the culpability of the present petitioner is prima facie found. Besides, the specific recital could have been given in the suspension order to provide the charge-sheet within stipulated time and to conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law with expedition. 8. Therefore, only on the aforesaid limited grounds the suspension order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by opposite party No.3 is hereby set-aside/quashed. 9. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order if it is so required but strictly in accordance with law and if any order is passed for conducting the departmental inquiry, such departmental inquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner subject to her proper cooperation inasmuch as without proper cooperation of the employee in a departmental proceeding, such departmental proceeding may not be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is partly allowed. 10. The writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench