Uma Nand Upadhyay v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Judgment
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
#1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
#2. Instant Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 13650 of 2024 as well as impugned suspension order dated 17.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2.
#3. There were four petitioners namely, Uma Nand Upadhyay (present appellant), Ashish, Amit Kumar Chaudhari and Chandra Shekhar, who were suspended in contemplation of pending inquiry on similar set of facts with regard to allegations of short supply of paddy to rice mills for the purposes of milling. When the petitioners had approached this Court, learned Single Judge had consolidated all the four writ petitions of the four petitioners and had, by a common order, disposed of the writ petitions on
10.09.2024 and had observed that the Disciplinary Authority had to expeditiously conclude the departmental inquiry.
#4. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2024, Amit Kumar Chaudhary had filed a Special Appeal No. 882 of 2024 which was dismissed on 26.09.2024. This Special Appeal has also been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2024 by the appellant Uma Nand Upadhyay who had earlier filed Writ A No. 13650 of 2024.
#5. Instant Special Appeal would also abide by the order dated
26.09.2024 which was passed in Special Appeal No. 882 of 2024.
#6. Instant Special Appeal is also accordingly dismissed.
#7. This order has been passed in presence of Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel who has appeared for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and
#5. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Karan (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.