HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 413 of 2026 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Heard Shri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the distribution corporation and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Challenge has been raised to the order of learned single judge dated 23.3.2026 passed in Kishan Swaroop v. State of U.P. and 2 Others 2026:AHC:58949. For ready reference the consideration offered by the learned single is quoted below : "2. At this stage, Court finds that impugned suspension order dated 19.2.2026 does not contemplate any inquiry, therefore, in case, no charge-sheet is filed within a period of two weeks from today, impugned suspension order shall be kept in abeyance subject to outcome of inquiry if any. 3. At this Stage Court takes note of an order passed in Writ-A No.3459 of 2026, therefore, respondents are under legal obligation to take a conscious decision of submitting a charge-sheet for consideration as to whether allegations made in suspension order would invite misconduct or not." 3. Submission is, the petitioner is a Junior Engineer serving the Distribution Corporation. For a simple breakdown not attributable to any explicit or implied act of the petitioner, he was suspended vide impugned order dated 19.2.2026. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manu Ghildyal, Vinay Kumar Singh Kishan Swaroop .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Even if it is assumed (without conceding), that the fact allegations made may be correct, those may never result in a major penalty. No other fact and circumstance have been shown to exist that there is any risk to the fairness and completeness of the inquiry, if such inquiry is continued while the petitioner's services remain intact. 5. To the extent, the learned single judge has failed to notice the above factors and disposed of the writ petition with a simple direction that the inquiry proceeding may be concluded, an error on principle has crept in the order of the learned single judge. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the distribution corporation has placed on record charge-sheet dated 8.4.2026 issued to the petitioner. It has been marked as 'X' and retained on record. Perusal of the charge-sheet reveals, three charges have been levelled against the original petitioner/ appellant, each involving simple act of negligence with respect to his supervisory powers over linesmen etc. They refer to breakdown of two transformers without giving detail of the date when such breakdown may have been suffered and without making any further allegation of role played or loss suffered. The third charge is also pertaining to some negligence with respect to maintenance and compliance of directions issued. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, to the extent, at present it could not be established that the charges levelled may lead to imposition of major penalty and further to the extent there is no allegation of risk to the fairness and completeness of the domestic inquiry if the petitioner remains in service during the inquiry proceedings, we find that the said facts have remained to be unconsidered by the learned single judge. 8. Though suspension orders may normally not be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction, at the same time, where neither it may appear that major penalty may arise upon completion of domestic inquiry nor there may be any risk to the fairness and completeness of the domestic inquiry itself, suspension orders may not be confirmed merely because the petitioner may have a right to reinstatement in service with back wages, SPLA No. 413 of 2026 2 later. 9. Accordingly, order dated 23.3.2026 of the learned single judge is set- aside to the extent the suspension order has been set-aside. Further, the special appeal is disposed of with the following observations : The suspension order dated 19.2.2026 is set-aside subject to the petitioner continuing to participate in the inquiry proceeding such that the same may be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 60 days from today. May 7, 2026 Shiv SPLA No. 413 of 2026 3 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad