Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44152 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8407 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prabhakar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy., Agriculture Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kr. Misra,Pooja Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 06.03.2025 whereby petitioner currently employed on the post of Senior Clerk has been suspended from service. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed purportedly in terms of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 but does not even indicate the allegations or charges levelled against petitioner and has been passed only as a measure of compliance of the order dated 05.03.2025 issued by Joint Director of Agriculture, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. It is therefore submitted that impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 4 of Rules 1999 and also indicates non application of mind by the authority concerned since impugned order has been passed at the dictates of a higher authorities. 4. Learned State Counsel has sought defend the impugned order on the basis that the order specifically indicates that it has been passed in pursuance of order passed by the Joint Director of Agriculture and in pursuance of Rule 7 of Rules 1999. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order does not even indicate any gist of allegations or charges levelled against petitioner and appears to have been passed only in compliance of directions issued by the higher authorities dated 05.03.2025. 6. It is settled law that while passing of order of suspension, the competent authority is required to apply his mind independently of any directions issued by any other authority. The allegations or charges levelled against delinquent employee are also required to be indicated in the suspension order with a satisfaction being recorded that the allegations if made out would entail major penalty. 7. None of the aforesaid aspects have been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, which is therefore quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh but keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects as well as conditions indicated in Rule 4 of Rules of 1999. 8. Consequently the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 30.7.2025 cks/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench