Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60040 (ALL)

SMT. ATIFA ALI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/7206/2025 · 2025-05-21

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86333 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7206 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Atifa Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar,C.S.C.,Rishu Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri S.N.Tiwari holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner,, Sri Akash Ojha for Rishu Mishra on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and Sri Anil Kumar for respondent no.4. 2. In the present case, petitioner and respondent no.4 were placed under suspension vide order dated 11.3.2025. Respondent no.4 namely Smt. Gayatri Devi has approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.3902 of 2025, Neutral Citation No.2025:AHC:69753 wherein she has challenged her suspension order and said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2.5.2025. Said order in its entirely is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Rishu Mishra, Advocate for Respondent-3. 2. This Court passed following order on 28.03.2025: "1. There is a call for abstaining from judicial work by the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, therefore, advocates are not appearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 11.03.2025 mainly on ground that basis of it i.e. report dated 11.03.2025 was not based on correct facts. 3. There is no averment whether inquiry was initiated or not. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, let this matter come up after 5 weeks as fresh. 5. Meanwhile, inquiry be concluded in accordance with law with co-operation of petitioner and report thereof be sent before this Court on the next date of hearing. 6. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. 3. According to counsel for petitioner, inquiry is still not completed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-3 submits that she has not been supplied copy of writ petition, therefore, she has no instructions. She submits that inquiry, if still pending, will be concluded soon. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of that in cae inquiry is not concluded with cooperation of petitioner within eight weeks from today, the order of suspension dated 11.03.2025 shall be deemed to be kept in abeyance, subject to outcome of inquiry." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date charge- sheet has not been served on the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 on basis of limited instructions is not able to show as to whether charge-sheet has been submitted to the delinquents or not. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no reason to take any other view as taken in Smt. Gayatri Devi (supra). However, it is further observed that charge-sheet if still not submitted to the delinquents, same shall be submitted within a period of two weeks and thereafter in terms of directions passed in Smt. Gayatri Devi (supra),inquiry shall be concluded with co-operation of delinquents and observations made in paragraph 5 of Smt. Gayatri Devi (supra) shall also be taken note of. 6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad