HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11372 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. In view of the order being passed, issuance of notice to opposite party No.4 is dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.09.2025 whereby petitioner has been suspended from service. Also under challenge is consequential Office Order dated 11.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a bare perusal of suspension order will reveal that petitioner's suspension has been resorted to in absence of any contemplation of enquiry which is mandatory in terms of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nagina Singh vs. State of U.P. and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Skand Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Javed Siddiqui .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) others, Writ-A No. 29138 of 2007. 5. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of instructions, however submits that although impugned order does not advert to any contemplation of enquiry proceedings, but a charge sheet dated 24.09.2025 has already been issued to petitioner and therefore the aspect of contemplation of enquiry proceedings has been taken care of. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner, on the basis of instructions, submits that he has not received any charge sheet till date. At this stage, learned State Counsel has provided a copy of charge sheet dated 24.09.2025 to learned counsel for petitioner. 7.Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's suspension has been resorted to without indicating any contemplation of enquiry. It is no doubt settled law that in case of any suspension resorted to for the purpose of inflicting major penalty, aspect of contemplation of enquiry is required to be indicated in suspension order as has already been held in the case of Ram Nagina Singh (supra), but in the concerned opinion of this Court, same would loose its mandatory relevance once a charge sheet has already been prepared and is said to have been issued. 8.In the case of Ram Nagina Singh (supra), it is evident that at the time of passing of the judgment, neither was WRIA No. 11372 of 2025 2 there any assertion in suspension order of any contemplation of enquiry nor any charge sheet had been issued to the delinquent employee. 9. In view of the fact that in the present case, a charge sheet dated 24.09.2025 has already been issued, a copy of which has been submitted by learned State Counsel and is taken on record, this Court finds that the aforesaid judgment would be inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It also appears that serious allegations have been levelled against petitioner for which charge sheet has been issued. 10. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. Petitioner is granted liberty to file his reply to the charge sheet as and when received and to co-operate in early disposal of enquiry proceedings. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself, leaving it open to petitioner to avail all available defence. Parties to bear their own costs. October 13, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 11372 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench