HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15405 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents. 2. Shri R.S. Umrao has made a statement that he is well-equipped with instructions under the signatures of Additional Excise Commissioner (Administration), U.P. dated 10.10.2025 and he does not propose to file any affidavit. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that she happens to be an excise inspector in an Excise Inspector in Excise Department and on 09.10.2024, a first information report being Case Crime No. 01 of 2024 under Section 12, 13(2), 13(1) (b) and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act came to be lodged against the writ petitioner pursuant whereto departmental proceedings stood initiated and the writ petitioner was also placed under suspension vide order dated 12.11.2024. 4. Questioning the suspension order, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 20920 of 2024 (Neelam Singh v. State of U.P. and others) which came to be disposed of with a direction to the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months and in case, the proceedings are not concluded within the time so stipulated by the Court then the writ petitioner is to be reinstated. 5. Post passing of the order, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service, according to the writ petitioner on 10.10.2024 inquiry was directed to be conducted on 21.11.2024, a chargesheet came to be issued to which the writ petitioner tendered her reply on 07.12.2024 and post conduction of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Neelam Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) departmental inquiry after appointment of the inquiry officer, the inquiry report came to be submitted on 21.08.2025 and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 02.09.2025 which stood replied by the writ petitioner on 18.09.2025. 6. Assailing the departmental proceedings and the chargesheet, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings cannot be continued simultaneously, particularly, in view of the fact that already the matter is seized before the competent court of law in the criminal proceedings lodged pursuant to the first information report in which a chargesheet has been submitted and the writ petitioner has already obtained bail. He submits that in case departmental proceedings is sought to be allowed to be continued then it will prejudice his case. 8. Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel submits that post issuance of a chargesheet, the inquiry officer stood appointed and inquiry report was submitted followed by a show cause notice which the writ petitioner had replied then whatever contentions or objections which the writ petitioner seeks to raise can obviously be raised before the disciplinary authority in that regard. He also submits that the suspension of the writ petitioner came to be revoked only on the premise that the departmental inquiry was not conducted within a period of three months. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 10. The facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was proceeded to a first information report pursuant whereto he obtained bail and now a chargesheet stands submitted. However, a departmental chargesheet came to be issued pursuant to an inquiry officer was appointed and the writ petitioner participated in the inquiry and the inquiry report was submitted, followed by show cause notice to which the writ petitioner has tendered his reply. At this juncture, already inquiry report along with show cause notice has been served upon the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner himself has tendered his reply then it is for the writ petitioner to raise all legal and factual issues before the disciplinary authority in that regard. It would not be appropriate for this Court to acceded to the request of the writ petitioner to WRIA No. 15405 of 2025 2 interfere at this stage. 11. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all legal and factual issues before the authorities and this Court has no reason to disbelieve the same would be dealt with most expedition. 12. Instructions have been filed today is taken on record and marked as Appendix-A. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. October 14, 2025 A. Prajapati WRIA No. 15405 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad