HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12965 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Munna Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2 and perused the record on board. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2026, wbereby he has been placed under suspension without contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings. 3. While entertaining, the instant writ petition, this court passed the following order dated 03.09.2026:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Munna Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order dated 14.05.2026 has been passed without contemplation of the disciplinary inquiry. He further submits that, till date, no charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that no inquiry Officer has been appointed pursuant to the suspension order dated 14.05.2026. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prays for and is granted one week's time to seek instructions from the authorities concerned regarding the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. List this matter as fresh on 14.09.2026." 4. In compliance with the order dated 03.09.2026, learned Standing Counsel has filed a copy of the instructions today, which is taken on record. On the basis of the instructions, he submits that, by a separate order dated 14.05.2026, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, Agra was appointed as the Enquiry Officer under Rule 33 of Uttar Pradesh Development Authorities Centralized Service Rules, 1985, read with Rule 7 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kailash Prakash Pandey, Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Munna Pandey Dinesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) of UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1999. It is further submitted that the chargesheet dated 08.08.2026/11.08.2026 has already been served upon the petitioner who has also filed his reply to the said memo of charges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, from a perusal of the chargesheet, it prima facie appears that the petitioner has been suspended on account of incident of arson which occurred on 11.02.2026 due to a short circuit. However, the petitioner had already been transferred from Vrindavan to Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 13.06.2025 and, therefore, he cannot be held directly responsible for the incident of arson which occurred on 11.02.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suspension order passed against the petitioner is not in consonance with the first proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. As per his submission, the power of suspension ought not to be exercised unless the allegations against the employee are of such a serious nature that in the event of their being established, they may ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that, on account of illegal construction having been raised over the plot in question, a demolition order was passed on 02.08.2024. However, the said order was not implemented by the petitioner during the period of discharging his duties at Vrindavan. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is personally responsible for the incident which occurred in relation to the construction raised over the plot in question. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the suspension order has been passed under the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. A perusal of Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 reveals that the suspension should not ordinarily be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servants are of such a serious nature that in the event of their being established, they may ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty. In the present matter, there is no specific finding recorded by the contesting-respondents indicating that, in the event the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved, they would ordinarily warrant imposition of a major penalty. However, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the factual controversy involved, this court is not inclined to examine the merits of the allegations at this stage or to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Thus, in view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ petition pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today. WRIA No. 12965 of 2026 2 Upon receipt there of, the disciplinary authority shall make every endeavour to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of five months thereafter, after affording the petitioner due and proper opportunity of hearing. (ii) The petitioner shall extend full co-operation in the disciplinary proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. In the event of any delay not attributed to the petitioner, the disciplinary authority shall ensure that the proceedings are concluded within the aforesaid period. (iii) Till a final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 14.05.2026, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension, shall remain in abeyance. (iv) It is, however, clarified that, if considered necessary, the competent authority shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to any other place during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 21, 2026 vinay WRIA No. 12965 of 2026 3 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad