High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 4, and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 5.

3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

4. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 15.05.2025 passed by respondent no.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. By the said order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that he had forwarded a whats-app message which is found to be improper as it has commented upon a particular section of the society.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to passing of the impugned suspension order the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet dated 22.05.2025 which has been received by him on 27.05.2025.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the impugned order of suspension has only been passed on the ground of he having forwarded a whats-app message as such the respondents are already having all the material for proceeding against him and a charge sheet has already been issued to him but then there cannot be any occasion for continuing the petitioner under suspension as there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to either interfere in the inquiry proceedings or any material in this regard.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others - 2022 SCC OnLine All 1875 to contend that in a similar matter pertaining to a whats-app forward this Court has held that there is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with any material now gathered and thus it is prayed that this Court may interfere with the impugned suspension order leaving it open for the respondents to continue with the pending departmental proceedings.

8. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have justified the impugned suspension order.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the the petitioner has been placed under suspension by means of order impugned on the ground of having forwarded a whats-app message against a particular section of the society which was containing certain adverse remarks.

10. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet.

11. The respondents are already having the material with them for proceeding against the petitioner which is the forwarded message on the whats-app group.

12. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Yadav (supra) has held as under:- "The petitioner is under suspension since 3.11.2022. Suspension cannot be used as a weapon to penalize the petitioner. Continuation of suspension must be in larger public interest. The continuation, if pose threat to an ongoing inquiry such delinquent employee need not be reinstated pending such inquiry. In the opinion of the Court the order of suspension should not normally depend merely on the gravity of charges but should depend upon a consideration of the question whether it is necessary to keep the delinquent away from his post he occupies. The effect of passing an order of suspension is to keep such delinquent away from his office temporarily. Its objective is to remove him from his sphere of influence during the investigation into and treat of the charges levelled against him. It may be that some or many of the records which are in his custody may have to be looked into. His colleagues or subordinates or sometimes even his superiors in office may have to be questioned. There may be cases where suspension may be justified also to avoid misuse of the authority of his office, misuse which may result in obstruction to the proper trial of the charges against him. The situation could be met by the officer being kept under suspension or in many cases merely by transferring the delinquent away from the scene, the choice necessarily depending upon the exigencies of the situation. In the case at hand, there is absolutely no need to keep the petitioner under suspension. The respondents are required to respond to the matter in an unpassionate manner. What could be gathered as a misconduct is already there on his WhatsApp group. There is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with any material now gathered. Larger public interest demands that the petitioner should not be continued under suspension. This Court is not interfering with the legality of the suspension which is left open for consideration in future. This Court is also not adverting to the fact as to whether such postings constitute a misconduct or not. The Court has merely observed that there is no imminent danger that would effect the ongoing process of inquiry if the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated. However, the petitioner is restrained from making any such posts on the WhatsApp group or any portal on social media touching upon the inquiry or any disciplinary action initiated against him till the conclusion of the inquiry against him."

13. In the instant case also, the matter pertains to a forwarded whats- app message which the respondents are already having. It is not that any other material is to be collected by the respondents or that the petitioner may interfere with the gathering of any evidence against him.

14. Considering the aforesaid, there cannot be any occasion for continuing suspension order of the petitioner dated 15.05.2025 more particularly when the respondents have already initiated disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the suspension order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is quashed leaving it open to the respondents to continue with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner to be concluded in accordance with law expeditiously.

15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 4, and Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 5.

3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is being decided finally.

4. Under challenge is the suspension order dated 15.05.2025 passed by respondent no.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. By the said order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that he had forwarded a whats-app message which is found to be improper as it has commented upon a particular section of the society.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to passing of the impugned suspension order the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet dated 22.05.2025 which has been received by him on 27.05.2025.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the impugned order of suspension has only been passed on the ground of he having forwarded a whats-app message as such the respondents are already having all the material for proceeding against him and a charge sheet has already been issued to him but then there cannot be any occasion for continuing the petitioner under suspension as there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to either interfere in the inquiry proceedings or any material in this regard.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others - 2022 SCC OnLine All 1875 to contend that in a similar matter pertaining to a whats-app forward this Court has held that there is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with any material now gathered and thus it is prayed that this Court may interfere with the impugned suspension order leaving it open for the respondents to continue with the pending departmental proceedings.

8. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have justified the impugned suspension order.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the the petitioner has been placed under suspension by means of order impugned on the ground of having forwarded a whats-app message against a particular section of the society which was containing certain adverse remarks.

10. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has been issued with a charge sheet.

11. The respondents are already having the material with them for proceeding against the petitioner which is the forwarded message on the whats-app group.

12. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Yadav (supra) has held as under:- "The petitioner is under suspension since 3.11.2022. Suspension cannot be used as a weapon to penalize the petitioner. Continuation of suspension must be in larger public interest. The continuation, if pose threat to an ongoing inquiry such delinquent employee need not be reinstated pending such inquiry. In the opinion of the Court the order of suspension should not normally depend merely on the gravity of charges but should depend upon a consideration of the question whether it is necessary to keep the delinquent away from his post he occupies. The effect of passing an order of suspension is to keep such delinquent away from his office temporarily. Its objective is to remove him from his sphere of influence during the investigation into and treat of the charges levelled against him. It may be that some or many of the records which are in his custody may have to be looked into. His colleagues or subordinates or sometimes even his superiors in office may have to be questioned. There may be cases where suspension may be justified also to avoid misuse of the authority of his office, misuse which may result in obstruction to the proper trial of the charges against him. The situation could be met by the officer being kept under suspension or in many cases merely by transferring the delinquent away from the scene, the choice necessarily depending upon the exigencies of the situation. In the case at hand, there is absolutely no need to keep the petitioner under suspension. The respondents are required to respond to the matter in an unpassionate manner. What could be gathered as a misconduct is already there on his WhatsApp group. There is no scope for the petitioner to interfere with any material now gathered. Larger public interest demands that the petitioner should not be continued under suspension. This Court is not interfering with the legality of the suspension which is left open for consideration in future. This Court is also not adverting to the fact as to whether such postings constitute a misconduct or not. The Court has merely observed that there is no imminent danger that would effect the ongoing process of inquiry if the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated. However, the petitioner is restrained from making any such posts on the WhatsApp group or any portal on social media touching upon the inquiry or any disciplinary action initiated against him till the conclusion of the inquiry against him."

13. In the instant case also, the matter pertains to a forwarded whats- app message which the respondents are already having. It is not that any other material is to be collected by the respondents or that the petitioner may interfere with the gathering of any evidence against him.

14. Considering the aforesaid, there cannot be any occasion for continuing suspension order of the petitioner dated 15.05.2025 more particularly when the respondents have already initiated disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the suspension order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is quashed leaving it open to the respondents to continue with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner to be concluded in accordance with law expeditiously.

15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench