HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 3386 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. Girish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the punishment order dated 07.09.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 by virtue of which the increments in the salary of the petitioner has been withheld, with cumulative effect. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in April 2022, the petitioner's salary was stopped without any rhyme and reason and when he moved a writ petition in the month of November, 2022, it was requested by District Basic Education Officer that he would pay the salary and so that the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and on such request, the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition and thereafter, vide order dated 10.03.2023, the salary of only three months was given to the petitioner and subsequently, on 24.07.2023, he was placed under suspension and chargesheet was served on 01.11.2023. He argued that in fact the aforesaid suspension order was passed because of the fact that the petitioner instituted a writ petition before this Court. He next added that the copy of the chargesheet, though, has been served upon the petitioner, but the evidence which was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Tiwari (Head Master) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) relied upon, were never furnished upon the petitioner. He added that he has taken specific plea in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by respondent no. 2 in counter affidavit. He added that as per the settled proposition of law, the evidence on which the chargesheet has been prepared must be given to the delinquent employee and admittedly, the same has not been given, therefore, the whole proceeding vitiates in the eyes of law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer has failed to refute the aforesaid contentions. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that while serving the chargesheet, the evidence/documents have not been furnished to the petitioner, therefore, the proceedings of inquiry vitiates. Consequently, the order dated 07.09.2024 including the inquiry report, are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 2 is given liberty to proceed in the matter after serving a copy of the charge sheet along with the records/evidences upon the petitioner. It is provided that inquiry proceedings would be concluded within period of three months, from the date of this order. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner shall be paid salary, subject to verification of his attendance. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. November 26, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 3386 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench