Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128982 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9894 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devraj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. In compliance of the order of this Court, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions in the matter. Upon perusal of which, I find that there is no seal of the District Magistrate nor there is approval granted by the District Magistrate to the recommendations made by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. 2. Upon pointed query being made, learned Standing Counsel state that as per the instructions, the signatures are of the District Magistrate, however, he would not dispute that even the word approval is not written above signatures to mark and forward it for further action. Seal of the District Magistrate is obviously not there and that is why it is being questioned. 3. In the circumstances, therefore, the Court is of the considered view that order of suspension has been passed without any due application of mind by District Magistrate who is the appointing authority in the matter. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126 has held that the disciplinary authority cannot act in mechanical manner and has to render due application of mind to the report is submitted before it for the disciplinary action to be taken against the employee subordinate to him. 4. In the circumstances, therefore, order of suspension is liable to be quashed. 5. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 6. Order of suspension dated 10.06.2025 is hereby quashed. 7. However, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to hold preliminary fact finding inquiry and then proceed against the petitioner if it so desires. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad