HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13322 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4th July, 2025, whereby regular detailed inquiry under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rule) 1999 has come to be instituted. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that such recommendation which has been made by the Governor for dereliction in discharge of duties and alleged misconduct for not carrying out official duties by the petitioner itself amounts to prejudging the inquiry and, therefore, such institution is rendered bad in law. 4. On the contrary, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that petition is pre-mature. It is contended that in the event an inquiry is sought to be disputed on certain charges they are only allegations unless and until they are reduced to charges. It is further submitted that even if the chargesheet is served upon the petitioner, petitioner shall have ample opportunity to contest the charges by offering his explanation and, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that certain allegations have come to be leveled against the petitioner for dereliction in discharge of duties and alleged misconduct for which a detailed inquiry has been ordered vide Rule 7 of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prem Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shilpi Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Rule) Rules, 1999. 6. In the considered view of the Court, every allegation which is leveled in the order impugned is yet not a charge. It is only after the chargesheet is issued to the petitioner then petitioner can be aggrieved. However, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel that in the event chargesheet is served upon the petitioner, the petitioner would have sufficient opportunity to offer his explanation to meet the charges. 7. The Court is also of the view that when the disciplinary proceeding is sought to be instituted under the statutory rules which have been framed for the said purpose, this Court will certainly desist from interfering in such matters to preempt any action upon such disciplinary proceedings at the instance of the petitioner/ charged officer/ delinquent employee. 8. In view of the above, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter. 9. Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2025 Atmesh WRIA No. 13322 of 2025 2 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad