HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11740 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 21.08.2025 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The order indicates that proceedings have been initiated against petitioner for absconding from duty. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed against the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999[hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999] inasmuch as prior to issuance of impugned order, a show cause notice dated 21.07.2025 was issued to petitioner which can only be assumed to having been issued in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 and therefore since only minor penalty was contemplated, there was no occasion for opposite parties to have suspended petitioner from service. It is also submitted that opposite parties have passed the impugned order without application of mind and without adverting to reply submitted by petitioner to show cause notice. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Bhaskar Prasad Dwivedi and others rendered in Special Appeal Defective No.172 of 2024 as well as in Dr. Haridutt Nemi v. State of U.P. and others [WRIT - A No. - 7173 of 2025]. 4. Learned State Counsel in rebuttal has submitted that there is no material on record for an assumption that the show cause notice issued earlier to petitioner was in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999. It is submitted that in fact the aforesaid show cause notice clearly indicates that notice was issued Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Naveen Shukla, Anurag Dwivedi, Jayshanker Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramakant Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) to petitioner as to why enquiry may not be instituted against him. It is also submitted that there is no provision for providing any opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to passing of impugned order. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has been placed placed under suspension on ground of absconding from duty. So far as submission with regard to show cause notice dated 21.07.2025 is concerned, a perusal of the same will indicate that there is no mention that it has been issued in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999. On the contrary, the show cause notice clearly indicates that notice was issued to petitioner soliciting his reply as to why enquiry proceedings may not be initiated against him. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the show cause notice was issued under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 for imposition of only a minor penalty. 6. It is also evident that there is no provision under Service Regulations for providing any opportunity of hearing to a delinquent employee prior to suspending him from service. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has also adverted to fact that impugned order indicates a complaint having been made against petitioner by one Mr. Raghvendra with whom he already had a civil dispute pending. It has been submitted that a copy of the complaint was never provided to petitioner. 8. With regard to such submission, it is apparent that same may be subject matter for enquiry proceedings but there is no Rule or Regulations whereby such a factor was required to be included in the order placing petitioner under suspension. 9. So far as the judgments on which learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance are concerned, It is evident that in both the cases, notice had earlier been issued for proceedings to be initiated in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 and are therefore not applicable in the present case where no such notice under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999 has been issued to petitioner. 10. In view thereof, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. October 9, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 11740 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench