Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46786 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8860 of 2025 Petitioner :- Poonam Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanshu Shukla,Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 17.06.2025 as well as inquiry report dated 06.06.2025. The order of suspension dated 31.01.2025 has also been challenged. Various concomitant prayers in the nature of mandamus have been sought. 3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had filed Writ-A No. 3691 of 2025 challenging the suspension order dated 31.01.2025. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.04.2025 observing that since a charge sheet had been issued, 15 days' time was granted for filing of reply. It is also submitted that the order directed that in case petitioner requires copy of any relevant document, the same shall be provided forthwith. Directions were also issued for conclusion of inquiry within a period of two months subject to proper cooperation of petitioner and it was further directed that in case inquiry is not concluded within a period of two months after receiving a defense reply of petitioner, the impugned suspension order would stand revoked. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that in pursuance of the charge sheet, petitioner had sought the original recording which forms the basis of allegations of corruption levelled against him but the said original recording was never provided to petitioner and inquiry report has been submitted in the absence thereof. It is submitted that since petitioner has complied with directions issued by this Court earlier, which, however, were flouted by opposite parties, the impugned suspension order is liable to be revoked in terms of the aforesaid directions. 5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 08.08.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and submits that the inquiry could not be concluded within the time frame specified due to uncooperative attitude of petitioner since he failed to submit reply to the show cause notice whereafter reminder was also sent to him and has been ignored. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no occasion to revoke the suspension order and final orders shall be passed shortly subject to reply being submitted by petitioner. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that certain directions were issued by this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2025, which is as follows:- "Be that as it may, since, the charge-sheet has been issued on 21.04.2025 and copy thereof has been provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, it is expected from the petitioner to submit a defence reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days and if he is requiring the copy of any relevant document, the same may be asked from the officer/competent authority and the same may be provided to the petitioner forthwith. As soon as the petitioner submits defence reply to the charge-sheet, the departmental enquiry shall be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner subject to the proper cooperation of the petitioner with expedition within a period of two months. Thereafter, the copy of the enquiry report, if any, may be provided to the disciplinary authority who may pass final order after seeking explanation from the petitioner providing her the copy of the enquiry report, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month. It is made clear that if departmental enquiry is not concluded within a period of two months after receiving the defence reply of the petitioner, the impugned suspension order dated 31.01.2025 shall be revoked, however, in that case the departmental enquiry may go on and final order may be passed, strictly in accordance with law." 7. It is the specific case of petitioner that in pursuance of directions issued by this Court order, he had sought a copy of the original recording which forms the basis of allegations of embezzlement levelled against him vide letter dated 15.05.2025, a mention of which has been indicated in the inquiry report. He, however, submits that despite such documents being required, only a copy thereof was provided without original being supplied. 8. It is nonetheless evident that subsequently inquiry report has already been submitted on 06.06.2025 and show cause notice has also been issued to petitioner, which is yet to be replied to. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly since in the earlier order dated 22.04.2025, liberty had been granted to opposite parties to conclude the departmental inquiry but no time frame for the same was specified, it is directed that petitioner shall submit his reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 17.06.2025 within a period of fifteen days taking all the pleas available to petitioner, which shall be considered and final orders thereupon shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the last date when petitioner is required to submit his reply. The disciplinary authority shall advert to all the pleas which are taken by petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. 10. In terms of the earlier order dated 22.04.2025, it is directed that in case the inquiry proceedings are not concluded within the time frame specified hereinabove, the impugned suspension order dated 31.01.2025 shall stand automatically revoked requiring reinstatement of petitioner in service. 11. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench