Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25151 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4779 of 2025 Petitioner :- Samaksh Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chef Secy., Deptt. Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savitra Vardhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Heard Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 10. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Chief Project Manager (Civil), Agra Metro Rail Project, UPMRCL, Agra (Disciplinary Authority), by means of which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Assistant Manager (Civil). The petitioner has also assailed the enquiry report dated 19.10.2024/11.11.2024 thereto the impugned punishment order has been passed. The petitioner has also assailed the memo of charges of major penalties dated 10.03.2024 issued by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 53 of UP MRCL – HR Manual Rules which provides standard time limits for disciplinary proceedings. The time limit prescribed in the aforesaid Rule has been given in a chart form which reads as under:- Sr. No. Proceeding Model time limit 1. Disposal of minor penalty inquiry Within 2 months from the date of issuing charge-sheet. 2. Disposal of major penalty cases Within 4 months from the date of issuing charge-sheet. 3. Review of suspension Before expiry of 90 days of suspension 4. Appeal by employee against the penalty imposed upon him/her Within one month from the date of communication of order of penalty 5. Disposal of appeal by Appellate Within 3 months from the date of Authority appeal. 6. Review of Appeal Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Reviewing Authority as specified in the schedule may call for the records of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit. The petitioner has submitted that on 11.03.2024, a memo of charge has been given to the petitioner and as per aforesaid Rule 53, the enquiry should be completed within a period of four months, i.e., on or before 11th July 2024, but such enquiry report has been communicated to the petitioner on 26.11.2024, wherein, the signature of the enquiry officer is dated 19.10.2024, therefore, the enquiry has not been concluded in terms of Rule 53. Further, the petitioner filed an appeal on 8th January 2025, challenging the punishment order dated 06.01.2025, and that appeal should have been disposed of within a period of three months, i.e., before 8th April 2025. As an abandoned precaution, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 25th March 2025 to the appellate authority (Annexure No. 43) to know the status of his appeal, but to no avail as he has not been provided any information by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another representation dated 8th November 2025 (Annexure No. 44) to the appellate authority, knowing the status of the appeal apprising that the time limit so given in the Rule 53 would be expiring on 8th April 2025, but no information has been given by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner has not been decided as yet. Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted on the basis of instruction that the appellate authority would take final decision within two weeks. On being confronted on Rule 53 to the effect that when a specific time frame has been indicated under the Rules to decide the statutory appeal, and if such appeal has not been decided within time, so stipulated, as to whether there is any provision of law of providing extension to the appellate authority to decide the appeal as per its convenience, Sri Kumar Ayush has drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 55, which provides power to relax time limit and to condone delay. Sri Kumar Ayush referring to Rule 55 has submitted that though there is inadvertent mistake on the part of the authority, not to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within timeframe as prescribed under the Rule 53, and those authority must intimate the petitioner that they have taken recourse of Rule 55, but at this stage, the appellate authority concerned is ready to decide the appeal within a week. The aforesaid information has been provided on the basis of specific instructions received from the appellate authority. Therefore, without entering into the matters of the issue, I hereby dispose of this petition, finally at the admission stage, directing the appellate authority to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within a period of one week from today as this order shall be intimated to the authority by Sri Kumar Ayush and decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner. It is needless to say that appellate authority shall not be prejudiced from the petitioner for the reason that he has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid inactions, but the appellate authority shall pass absolutely independent order strictly in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench