ATUL KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. BASIC EDUCATION LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
WRIA/13790/2025 · 2025-12-10
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 199752 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 199752 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13790 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 11.11.2025 whereby petitioner has been placed under suspension on the post of Basic Education Officer in contemplation of departmental proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was in fact a member of Committee for the purposes of procurement of furniture and was not the sole person involved in the decision making process. It is further submitted that approval of District Magistrate concerned had been taken at every stage of the proceedings and therefore it is not as if petitioner was acting in an individual capacity. It is also submitted that a perusal of impugned order will also make it evident that the only allegation levelled against petitioner is of negligence, which does not amount to misconduct under Service Rules and therefore there was no occasion for petitioner to be suspended. It is also submitted that impugned order therefore is in violation of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He further submits that the complainant M/s Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Asit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Atul Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
Neeman Seating Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has not responded to a show cause notice issued earlier and was recommended for black-listing and therefore the proceedings instituted against petitioner in pursuance of complaint made by said firm is in fact malafide. It is thus submitted that proceedings against petitioner are an offshoot of action taken by petitioner against complainant. 5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 09.12.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and on that basis refutes submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that although the Committee has taken all the relevant decisions but the documentation furnished before the Committee for purposes of taking decision were in fact supplied by petitioner and were tailor-made to suit a particular firm.
He has reiterated the allegations levelled against petitioner as indicated in impugned order. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the grounds taken by petitioner particularly the fact that he has been targeted due to action taken against complainant earlier and that all the relevant records were in fact approved by District Magistrate concerned, would require examination by enquiry officer. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, at the stage of challenge to suspension order, it would be inappropriate for this Court to examine the factual aspects and record a finding thereupon, which would be a subject matter of enquiry. 8. Since admittedly, charge sheet has not yet been issued to petitioner, the opposite parties are directed to prepare and issue charge sheet to petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today to which at least 15 days' time shall be granted to petitioner to file response. The enquiry proceedings themselves are required to be concluded expeditiously within a period of four months from the last date when petitioner is required to submit his reply. Aforesaid time-frame shall be subject to cooperation of WRIA No. 13790 of 2025 2
petitioner in enquiry proceedings. 9. With aforesaid direction(s), the petition stands finally disposed of. . December 10, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13790 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench