Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4293 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12904 of 2024 Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Consumer Protection Weight Measure Sectt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjali Mirdha,Divya Yadav,Pranendra Mirdha,Shyam Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pranendra Mirdha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. The affidavit of compliance filed today is taken on record. 3. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Senior Inspector, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2024 passed by Controller, Legal Metrology thereby attaching the petitioner from Alambagh, Lucknow to Secondary Standard Laboratory, Lucknow. It has been submitted that the petitioner was posted at Lucknow only in July, 2024 and merely after expiry of three months the impugned order has been passed. In the impugned order it has been recorded that the petitioner is receiving illegal gratification to the tune between Rs.5000 to 10,000/- from the petrol pumps for permitting them to under weigh the fuel and also taking illegal gratification between Rs.6000 to 10000/- to issue licenses to the oil companies for transportation. 4. It seems that preliminary inquiry was also conducted where statements of various drivers were also recorded and it is after recording prima facie satisfaction that the impugned order has been passed and decision has been taken to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and it is during the said proceedings that attachment order of the petitioner has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside and submits that it is only the belief of the respondents and there is no other cogent material to link the petitioner to the said misconduct as has been narrated in the impugned order. 6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that there is no dispute that it is only the allegations against the petitioner which has been narrated in the impugned order which indicates that the petitioner is habitual in engaging in illegal enrichment of himself and attempting to take bribe and these facts would be reduced in the form of charges and the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to defend himself at the appropriate stage. He submits that it is during pendency of the proceedings that the order of attachment has been passed and further stated that there is no adverse effect of the impugned order of attachment in as much as the petitioner has not been inflicted with adverse effect or with reduction of any of his salaries or other 7. I have heard rival contentions as well as perused the record. 8. From perusal of the impugned order it is clear that there are serous allegations which have come up against the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. The allegations range from taking illegal gratification from the petrol owners as well as transporters of the petroleum products. He is also said to be involved in taking illegal gratification to issue license which are extremely serious allegations. It is after considering the said allegations that the order impugned has been passed and decision has been taken for institution of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner as of now does not suffer from any adverse consequence and the order which has been passed is only to conduct free and fair inquiry. 9. If we are conscious of the conduct of a person against whom, serious allegations have been levelled which pertain to discharge of his official duties then needless to say that during conduct of the inquiry he should be removed from the said post in as much as there is likelihood of his interfering with the evidence and official records which are in his custody. It is for the aforesaid reasons and considering the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, we do not find any case for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition being bereft f merits is accordingly dismissed. 10. It is, however, expected that the respondents shall conduct the inquiry with expedition in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench