Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10937 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikas Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.01.2025 whereby he has been placed under suspension on the ground that enquiry is in contemplation. 3. On the last date when the petition was entertained, it was argued by Sri Khare that no chargesheet having been issued, respondent- disciplinary authority was no more interested in institution of regular enquiry and in the circumstances the suspension order was liable to go. Hence this Court on 04.08.2025 passed following order: "It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that though petitioner stood suspended on 23rd January, 2024 but till date no chargesheet has been served upon him and hence in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings his suspension order is liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions in the matter by the next date fixed. List on 19th August, 2025 amongst top 10 cases. " 4. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction which is taken on record and copy of which has also been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon perusal of the instruction, I find that petitioner has been served with the chargesheet on 18.08.2025 soon after the order was passed by this Court on 04.08.2025 asking the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the matter. 5. Thus it is clear that till 18.08.2025 respondents had not instituted any enquiry. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as Supreme Court that prolonged suspension is bad for want of institution of enquiry and here is the case where the enquiry was not set into motion until this Court passed order on 04.08.2025. 6. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension was bad for the reason that there was no enquiry set into motion is liable to be accepted. 7. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order of suspension dated 23.01.2025 is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be permitted to discharge his duties and shall be paid salary. However, the Court is also of the view that since chargesheet has been issued, the disciplinary proceedings shall also be brought to its logical end and hence following further directions are issued: (a). Petitioner shall be submitting reply to the chargesheet within four weeks' time. (b). If petitioner submits reply as directed hereinabove, the departmental inquiry shall be brought to its logical end in the next six weeks' time after due participation and cooperation of the petitioner in the departmental inquiry. (c). After the departmental inquiry is concluded as directed hereinabove, the disciplinary authority shall proceed to pass final order in the matter in full compliance of the principles of natural justice within the next six weeks' time. (d). Petitioner shall be cooperating in the inquiry throughout right from the submission of the reply to the chargesheet until the disciplinary proceeding is concluded. However, in the event petitioner does not render due support and cooperation in the inquiry, it will remain open for the Inquiry Officer to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law and submit the report before the disciplinary authority, who shall thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law. (e). Claim of salary for the period petitioner has remained under suspension shall depend upon final outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Deepika WRIA No. 10937 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad