HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14298 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned advocate for petitioner, Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned advocate for respondent-2 and Sri Rytham Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kaushlendra Nath Singh, learned advocate for respondents - 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner, a Junior Engineer at Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (P.V.V.N.L.), was put under suspension vide order dated 31.07.2025 which is impugned in present writ petition on a ground that despite a complaint from M/s Urethane Coaters, a fault was not rectified even after 24 hours of complaint and due to said fault, C.T. of Metering Cubical of aforesaid company got damaged and customer has sought cost for replacement and this act of Junior Engineer has tainted the reputation of employer. 3. Petitioner was failed to discharge his duties diligently and failed to follow the orders of senior officers and as such, he failed to exercise due diligence and his act was contrary to Regulation 3 of U.P. Government Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1956. 4. Learned advocate for petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any misconduct and he always remained diligent towards his duties. There was no earlier complaint against the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on 31.07.2025 and till 15.09.2025 when this writ petition was filed, no charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. 5. Learned advocate for petitioner, by referring a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 SCC Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brajesh Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Kaushalendra Nath Singh Anil Malik .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Online All 870 submits that if an incumbent is placed under suspension without mentioning or contemplating any disciplinary proceedings, said order of suspension would not be justified. 6. Learned advocate further submits that in present case also, suspension order has not disclosed whether incumbent was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pending proceedings, therefore, impugned order is contrary to judgment of Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra) and is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned advocates for respondents have supported the impugned order that petitioner has failed to discharge his duties diligently, therefore, he was put under suspension though they are not able to show that in impugned order, any disciplinary proceedings was contemplated as well as that till date, no charge sheet has been issued though learned advocates for respondents, on instructions, further submit that if respondents want to proceed with disciplinary proceedings, a charge sheet will be issued within 7 days. 8. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 9. Argument of learned advocate for petitioner has substance since in the impugned order, there is no reference that case of disciplinary proceedings was made out or respondents are contemplating to proceed against petitioner by conducting any disciplinary proceedings, therefore, it would be contrary to law as mentioned in Radhey Shyam Srivastava (supra). 10. Still considering that nature of allegations appears to be serious and that even in such circumstances, respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if so decide, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in the event respondents fail to issue charge sheet against the petitioner within 10 days from today, the impugned suspension order shall be kept in abeyance subject to outcome of disciplinary proceedings, if initiated on basis of allegations mentioned in the suspension order. September 22, 2025 N. Sinha WRIA No. 14298 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad