HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11950 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. No one is appearing for the Union of India. Present petition is preferred while laying challenge to the impugned suspension order dated 1.8.2025 passed by the respondent no.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner joined Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the IRCTC') in 2008 and his conduct was always above board. He submitted that all of sudden, on 1.8.2025, the petitioner has been put under suspension without any reason or incident and he received the suspension order and thereafter he sent email on 7.8.2025 while requesting to communicate the reason for suspension but no response has been received yet. He submitted that an appeal was preferred against the suspension order on 25.9.2025, which is pending consideration. He submitted that there is no specific allegation or charge against the petitioner for committing any misconduct and, therefore, the whole suspension proceedings is against the law. Adding his arguments, he submitted that uptil no enquiry or disciplinary proceedings is contemplated against the petitioner and he has been suspended without following the rules applicable to the petitioner known as Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pratyush Mishra, Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, Ram Raj Vikas Pratham .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Railway New Delhi And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) IRCTC (Disciplinen and Appeal) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2003'). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that on perusal of rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules 2003, it is evident that an employee can be placed under suspension where disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or pending against him. Rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules 2003 reads as under:- "5(1)(i) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or" He submitted that internal vigilance enquiry, at the preliminary stage is pending consideration wherein several dates have been fixed but the petitioner did not co-operate and ultimately, 17.10.2025 is fixed. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that some internal vigilance enquiry is going on and for that, the petitioner has been placed under susupension whereas Rules 2003 do not contemplate any provision with respect to suspension in such exigencies. Bare perusal of rule 5(1)(i) of Rules 2003, it is apparent that the employee can be put under suspension, where disciplinary proceedings, is pending or contemplated against such an employee but this is not the case herein. This Court finds that there is provision prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules 2003, for filing of an appeal against suspension order, seeking the reason and the same has been filed by the petitioner on 25.9.2025, which is undisputedly pending before the respondent no.4. It is spelt out from the aforesaid submissions and discussions that the fullfledged enquiry as has been provided under the Rules 2003 has not been initiated against the petitioner and it is only internal vigilance enquiry, therefore, the suspension order is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned suspension order is hereby kept in abeyance. WRIA No. 11950 of 2025 2 The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.4 on 17.10.2025 and to co-operate in the internal vigilance enquiry of the department and he will keep on appearing on each and every date fixed and will never remain absent without moving application in writing, with cogent reasons, failing which, the interim order shall stand revoked. It is further provided that once the department comes to the conclusion for contemplating fulfledged departmental enquiry, it is liberty to the respondent department that if charge is of such nature which will lead to major punishment, the proceedings as is provided under rule 5(1)(i) can be undertaken. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is hereby disposed of . October 15, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 11950 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench