HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13599 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Rahul Agrawal, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the transfer order dated 28.06.2025 on the ground that this order is almost on identical set of facts upon which an earlier suspension order was passed on 30.05.2025 considering the same very report and the said order came to be quashed by this Court vide detailed order dated 11.06.2025 in Writ A No.8333 of 2025 on the ground that it was in violation of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that more especially when this time again same reports have been reconsidered may be in detail but the charges being of the same nature that would also not invite a major penalty as held by this Court while setting aside the earlier suspension order dated 11.06.2025. It is also argued that till Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akanksha Sharma, C.S.C. Gautam Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) date no chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner which itself shows that the charges were not having any supportive evidence and that was why the disciplinary authority was not able to formulate article charges. 4. Per contra, it is argued by learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Agrawal for the State that though the previous reports have been considered but this time they have been considered exhaustively and additional report of Amicus Curiae has also been taken into consideration. It is further contended that looking to the entire spectrum allegations and reports obtained thereupon, it would be in the fitness of things that matter is investigated threadbare in a domestic enquiry. It is submitted that whatsoever is been shown to repel the charges can be a valid defense for the petitioner to set up before enquiry officer and so this Court may not interfere in this matter at this stage exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Upon a pointed query being made, Sri Agrawal, learned Advocate General, submits that the chargesheet has already been prepared and approved and has been forwarded to the enquiry officer to be duly served upon the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find that this time the suspension order not only refers to various reports which may have been considered earlier also while passing the suspension order dated 30.05.2025 but the report submitted by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court in another pending matter being Writ A No.28694 of 2024 wherein the Court is WRIA No. 13599 of 2025 2 monitoring the functioning of the hospital has also been considered. It would, therefore, be appropriate to permit the departmental enquiry to go on keeping the petitioner away from office concerned. However, the Court will not remain oblivious of the fact that the chargesheet has not been served till date and petitioner is also complaining of cardiac issue and has been transferred by attachment to Jalaun where medical facility may not be as per requirement. Court is also of the view that petitioner may not be kept under prolonged suspension in the name of pending enquiry. Accordingly, this petition at this stage stands disposed of with following directions: (a). Petitioner shall be served with the chargesheet within 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' 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 WRIA No. 13599 of 2025 3 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. (f). Petitioner shall continuously be paid his subsistence allowance if he continues to report in the respondent-establishment where he has been working. (g). In so far as the petitioner claims that he is suffering from cardiac problem and attachment at Jalaun with not enough medical facility will prejudice the same, I consider it appropriate for the petitioner to make an application/representation before the authority concerned within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority sympathetically taking pragmatic view to post him in a nearby station so that the enquiry also gets facilitated. Appropriate order shall be passed within a further period of two weeks' time. (h). It is further provided that if despite cooperation of the petitioner disciplinary proceedings are not brought to their logical end within the time prescribed hereinabove, petitioner's suspension shall stand revoked and petitioner shall be reinstated with pay. September 18, 2025 Deepika WRIA No. 13599 of 2025 4 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad