Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70891 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5881 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Meena Kanaujia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Instructions in the matter has been obtained by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, which has been placed before the Court and are taken on record, copy whereof has also been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order of suspension dated 08.04.2025 on three grounds: (i) The order has been passed by the authority not competent in the matter as the Director General (Jail) is the competent authority, whereas, the order has been passed placing the petitioner under suspension by the Director General, Jail Administration. (ii) The evidence has already come up in the case that it is Superintendent of Jail who was culprit in the matter of unauthorized release of an accused for which the petitioner cannot be held guilty. (iii) Petitioner had already made a complaint against the Superintendent of Jail for sexual harassment meted out to her and now, in order to suppress the complaint and for the stand taken by the petitioner, she is being made a scapegoat. 4. Meeting the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that order of suspension has been passed levelling specific charge against him on the ground that he was involved in release of one prisoner namely Sunil Kumar by forging the signature of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and in this regard petitioner has also been served with a charge-sheet reducing the charge into the article of charge. Copy whereof has also been brought on record. 5. It is further submitted by Sri Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents argued that Director General (Jail) and Director General, Jail Administration are both in a position are at par and are competent authorities to place petitioner under suspension. As far as the charge of malafide intention is concerned questioning the order of suspension, Director General of Jail being not authority by name in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Supp)(1) 222, such petition cannot be entertained. Insofar as the allegations that petitioner was not involved and it was Superintendent of Jail who was guilty instead, Sri Abhishek Srivastava submits that petitioner can raise this defence before inquiry officer as it is a matter of fact to be determined by the inquiry officer while reply of the petitioner is examined qua the charge-sheet. Sri Srivastava argued that giving an opportunity to disciplinary authority shall ensure that disciplinary proceedings stand concluded within a maximum period of three months provided thereof petitioner cooperates. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find there to be a specific allegation in the suspension order against the petitioner for which she has been placed under suspension and now the allegations have been further elaborated in the article of charge as charge No.1 with supported material. 7. In the considered view of the Court in the matter of suspension exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have to be cautiously done because suspension is no punishment as employee is only attached to the office so that such delinquent employee may not influence inquiry and during such inquiry subsistence allowance is paid for the period such employee remains under suspension. Looking to the nature of charge that has been incorporated in the charge-sheet that has come to be approved by the competent authority, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter of suspension at this stage. 8. In the circumstances, pleadings raised, documents brought on record both along with petition as well as with the instructions, I consider it more appropriate to direct for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceeding, However, in the event disciplinary proceedings are not concluded despite directions issued by this Court and cooperation reckoned by the petitioner, petitioner may be entitled to relief as far as order of suspension is concerned looking to the defence taken in the petition. 9. Learned Advocate of the petitioner has been served with copy of the instructions that contains charge-sheet also which will be taken to be an effective service of charge-sheet upon the petitioner. Petitioner may apply for certain documents within three weeks from today if she needed for submitting the rely. In the event, any request is made before the respondents, the respondents are directed to supply the necessary documents to the petitioner and if documents are very confidential, she may be permitted to pursue the same within further period of two weeks. After perusal of the document petitioner shall submit within a further period of two weeks and the departmental oral inquiry shall be held in the matter shall be concluded within 30 days with due participation being allowed to the petitioner. Entire disciplinary proceeding thereafter shall be concluded within a further period of six weeks. For the period petitioner remains under suspension, she shall be paid subsistence allowance. 10. It is, however, clarified that disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within the time frame as prescribed hereinabove despite due cooperation rendered by the petitioner. Order of suspension dated 08.04.2025 shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement and salary. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad