HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13349 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30.09.2025 whereby petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Commissioner, Gorakhpur Sector 11 has been suspended from service in contemplation of departmental inquiry. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the impugned suspension order will make it evident that allegations levelled against him is that due to his negligence, the firm being M/s Lucky Enterprises was granted deemed approval on 07.04.2025. 4. It is submitted that allegations levelled against petitioner clearly come within the realm only of negligence and not of misconduct and therefore there was no requirement of suspending petitioner in terms of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. He has also adverted to the order dated 05.05.2025 to submit that as soon as petitioner became aware of the deemed approval, he issued a show cause notice dated 16.04.2025 to be firm concerned and thereafter cancelled the registration on 05.05.2025. It is therefore submitted that there was no deliberate intention or misconduct on the part of petitioner with regard to the allegations levelled. He has also placed reliance on interim order dated 30.10.2025 passed in the case of Smt. Neelam Yadav Versus State of U.P. & Ors. Writ A No.12283 of 2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gauri Shankar Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ajay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Anubhag- 1, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that it would be evident from the order dated 05.05.2025 issued by the petitioner cancelling registration of the firm concerned that it is effective from 05.05.2025 and not de novo i.e. from the date of registration was deemed on 07.04.2025. It is therefore submitted that there is clear intention on the part of petitioner to provide undue benefit of one month to the firm concerned. It is therefore submitted that the act and omissions of the petitioner are clearly deliberate and would construe misconduct and not mere negligence. 6. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for petitioner submits that direction may be issued for early conclusion of inquiry. 7. Since admittedly charge-sheet has already been served upon petitioner to which a reply has not yet been provided, petitioner is granted liberty to submit a reply to the charge-sheet within a period of three weeks from today. In the event of such reply being submitted within the aforesaid time period, inquiry proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months from the last date requiring petitioner to submit his reply. The aforesaid time limit shall obviously be subject to cooperation of petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 19, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 13349 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench