HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 436 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Mr. Shireesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Advocate have filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4, which is taken on record. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 01.12.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 13806 of 2025. 3. The petition was filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the order dated 14.11.2025, whereby the inquiry officer was appointed for initiation of inquiry against the petitioner on three allegations indicated in the order. 4. Learned Single Judge, inter alia, found that the petition was premature and the order dated 04.11.2025, whereby the representation made by the petitioner was rejected, has not been challenged and consequently, dismissed the petition. 5. Counsel for the appellant made submissions that besides the other aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has observed that the order dated 04.11.2025 is reasoned and speaking, which observations could not have been made as the order dated 04.11.2025 was not subject matter of the writ petition and the petitioner if questions the validity of the said order dated 04.11.2025, the observations made would come in his way and therefore, to the said extent, the order impugned, passed by learned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Pratap Verma, Surya Mani Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vivek Shukla (A.C.S.C.), Shireesh Kumar Vivek Raj Pandey .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Sugar Industry and Cane Development and 4 others .....Respondent(s) Single Judge, be set aside. 6. Having gone through the order passed by learned Single Judge and the submissions made by counsel for the appellant, the apprehension expressed by the appellant apparently has no substance. The petition has been decided by holding the same as premature and on account of the fact that order dated 04.11.2025 had not been questioned. 7. However, to dispel the apprehension as expressed by counsel for the appellant, we direct that in case, the appellant questions the validity of the order dated 04.11.2025, in accordance with law, the observations made regarding the order being reasoned and speaking by learned Single Judge would not come in way of the appellant. 8. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. December 15, 2025 Mukesh Pal/Asheesh SPLA No. 436 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench