HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15169 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Kritika Sinha, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and perused the record. Instructions, passed on today, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the suspension order dated 20.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 and for a further prayer to release all consequential benefits including arrears of salary to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a false complaint, that too was not accompanied by an affidavit, some inquiry has been held, on the basis of which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the following charges: (i) Bids were uploaded on e-portal after much delay; (ii) Uploaded bids were only kept live on e-portal for five days i.e. 24.07.2025 to 29.07.2025, whereas, it should have been on the e-portal for 15 days (as the tender was short time tender) granting the bidders sufficient time for participation. (iii) Bids were live on the DVVNL-Portal for 24 hours only, causing hardship to the bidders in depositing fee and security amount. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manu Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, K.K.Rao Manoj Kumar Gaur .....Petitioner(s) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) (iv) Price/ financial bid was open on 07.08.2025 and the complaint was made on 21.08.2025, but, the Comparative Statement/Bill of Quantities (BOQ) were uploaded on 08.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 after 40 to 45 days, whereas, normally, the Comparative Statement/ Bill of Quantities (BOQ) are to be uploaded in one or two days. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charges are not such as to warrant major penalty, therefore, suspension order is in violation of Rule 4(1) of the Regulations 2020. He next submits that the complaint, that too made by a person not in anyway concerned with the tender or bidding process, and also without affidavit in support thereof, should not have been entertained. Any inquiry based on such complaint is illegal. The respondent no. 4 who is neither appointing authority nor has been authorized by the appointing authority, has passed the order impugned, this fact again makes the suspension order illegal. It is further contended that the charges as alleged in the suspension order can be said to be technical lapses on the part of the petitioner for which he cannot be held guilty hence the suspension order is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.01.2020 passed in Service Single No. 35429 of 2019 (Avanindra Dikshit vs. State of UP and another), wherein some wrong fixation of pay was done on the basis of some other Government order instead of the one which was applicable in that case; irregular correction order was also issued in the said case; and alleged excess payment of arrears due to such pay fixation caused huge loss to State exchequer, therefore, in the said case taking note of the technical lapse the suspension order was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that petitioner's case is similar to Avanindra Dikshit (supra), as the charge of misrepresenting the circular with regard to keeping the bids uploaded online for 15 days, though it was only for 5 days, is vague and other charges are only technical lapses, therefore, suspension order may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that even if some outsider has pointed out illegalities which have been brought to the notice of the Department and after conducting a preliminary inquiry that WRIA No. 15169 of 2025 2 too after giving opportunity for submitting his explanation, suspension order has been passed. He further submits that the petitioner has not followed the circular in sum and substance, which has deprived of the other bidders from participation and for many years, only three Firms have participated in the tender bids due to his technical lapse which cannot be ignored at this juncture, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. 6. The judgment, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the things have not been done in the manner as provided in the circular, which caused inconvenience to other bidders. From the outcome of preliminary inquiry, only, it was revealed that the aforesaid is being done deliberately to give advantage to three Firms which have always participated in the tender bids. 7. This Court finds that the charges so levelled against the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the explanation and the documents relied upon by the petitioner can be a defence in the departmental inquiry and during the inquiry the petitioner will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that no interference is called for in the matter. The writ petition fails. It stands dismissed accordingly. However, it is expected that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental inquiry, which shall be concluded by the authority concerned within one month. 9. Needless to say, that in case the inquiry is not concluded within the stipulated period, it shall be open for the petitioner to take legal recourse as provided under law. 10. No order as to costs. October 15, 2025 DS WRIA No. 15169 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad