HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13254 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghav Dev Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order of suspension dated 08.08.2025 on the ground that the charges levelled are without having any evidence in support thereof. 3. However upon the perusal of preliminary fact finding enquiry report, I find that large number of trees have been found to have been cut wholly illegally in the forest area and the petitioner has taken an excuse that he was a part of the team constituted by the District Magistrate to deal with the work of Pradhanmantri Awas Yojana. He has further relied upon a judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choughary v. Union of India and others: (2015) 7 SCC 291. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that whether the petitioner has been negligent in looking after the circle for which he was appointed or not is a matter of investigation and enquiry and the plea taken before this Court is only a defense and, therefore, this Court may not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghav Dev Garg, Yashvi Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ankesh Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) interfere in the order impugned. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the preliminary fact finding enquiry report as well as the order passed by the competent authority in the matter, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter for the reason that charges are serious in nature and needed to be investigated into. It is in the interest of justice that the petitioner is placed under suspension so that the enquiry does not get influenced. However the Court is also conscious that since the petitioner claims to be the member of the team constituted by the District Magistrate therefore, he was not deliberately negligent, it would be in the interest of justice that the enquiry is expedited so that the petitioner is not continued under suspension for prolonged period in the name of pending enquiry. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with following directions: a. Petitioner shall be served with chargesheet within a period of three weeks from today. b. Petitioner shall be submitting reply to the chargesheet within two weeks' time. c. 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. d. 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' WRIA No. 13254 of 2025 2 time. e. 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. 7. It is however provided that if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded as directed above within period prescribed, the suspension of the petitioner shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be reinstated with pay. September 8, 2025 Deepika WRIA No. 13254 of 2025 3 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad