HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1113 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Having heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State, we are not inclined to offer any interference in the order of the learned single judge dated 31.08.2026 in Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another, 2026:AHC:183221. The suspension order is dated 17.02.2026. It narrates occurrences that definitely may have called for full-fledged disciplinary proceedings. The charge-sheet itself has been issued to the petitioner on 13.04.2026 narrating five charges. 2. At the stage of hearing, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Corporation has heavily relied on charge no.1 read with the evidence in the shape of an audio recording to submit that serious allegations of corruption have been leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have demanded bribe to be paid to him in lieu of favour. He is also alleged to have threatened the employees with penal consequences if his demands were not satisfied. 3. Third, it has been emphasized, against two months time granted by the learned single judge and only after the order had been passed, the petitioner first filed his reply to the charge-sheet on 02.09.2026. The proceedings are underway. That fact has not been disclosed even in this Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Adarsh Bhushan, C.S.C. Rajesh Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) intra-Court appeal proceeding. 4. Last, it has been emphasized, the Corporation is making best efforts to complete the proceedings within limited time granted by the learned single judge. Thus, it has been assured, subject to the petitioner cooperating in the disciplinary proceeding, the same may be concluded by 31.10.2026. In the event of proceedings remaining pending, beyond two months, the right of the petitioner has been protected inasmuch as, at that stage, the suspension order would stand revoked automatically. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 4 of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2020, read with its proviso has been violated, does not merit acceptance, at this stage. First, there was delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the writ Court. Against suspension order dated 17.02.2026, writ petition was filed in August 2026. That too, well after service of the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2026. Second, the issue whether the charge may involve award of major penalty may not be decided ex- parte. For that purpose, affidavits would have to be exchanged before any conclusion is reached. 6. Keeping in mind the above, learned single judge has fully protected the petitioner by observing that if the disciplinary proceeding are not concluded within two months, the suspension order would stand revoked, automatically. 7. In that view of the matter, we find no error in principle in the order passed in favour of the petitioner, in the present case. On one hand, there was delay/laches on part of the petitioner in approaching the writ Court, and, on the other, his interest has been protected by providing for time bound conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding within a wholly reasonable period of two months. Also, we observe, it would be SPLA No. 1113 of 2026 2 premature to reach a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are such as may never lead to the award of a major punishment. To the extent the charge-sheet is not under challenge, no issue of vagueness of charge, etc., may be examined in these proceedings. 8. Insofar as the other prayer has been made with respect to providing copies of documents relied against the petitioner and list of witnesses, Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the Corporation assures the Court that the same would be available to the petitioner at least two days before the next date fixed in the proceedings. 8. In view of the above, present intra-Court appeal stands disposed of. September 29, 2026 Prakhar SPLA No. 1113 of 2026 3 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad