Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’) against his suspension order, wherein the Uttar Pradesh Government has suspended him on the allegation of being in a sexual relationship with another woman despite being married, the single judge bench of Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. upon due consideration of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in V.N. Daipuria v. State of U.P.1, and the judgment of the Division Bench in Shahjahan Khan v. State of U.P., 2002 SCC OnLine All 46, stayed the operation of the impugned suspension order until further orders.
The petitioner submitted that the impugned suspension order had been passed mechanically by the State Government, solely on the basis of a recommendation made by the Additional Director General of Police, without any independent application of mind.
It was further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner, of being in a sexual relationship with another woman despite being married had been disputed. The petitioner contended that such a relationship, even if assumed to be true, did not constitute misconduct under service rules.
Additionally, the petitioner informed the Court that an FIR had been lodged against him under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at the instance of the complainant. He had challenged the said FIR by filing a writ petition, in which a Division Bench of the Court had passed an interim order staying the filing of the charge sheet.
The petitioner further submitted that, under Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first is considered misconduct. However, he contended that merely maintaining a relationship with another woman while still legally married did not amount to misconduct under the said Rules. Therefore, the charges mentioned in the impugned suspension order, even if accepted as true, would not warrant the imposition of any penalty, much less a major penalty. It was also argued that the impugned order lacked any independent satisfaction recorded by the disciplinary authority and was thus vitiated.
The Court, upon due consideration of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in V.N. Daipuria (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench in Shahjahan Khan (supra), stayed the operation of the impugned suspension order until further orders.
The standing counsel was directed to file a counter affidavit within four weeks. A rejoinder affidavit, if any, was permitted to be filed within two weeks thereafter.
The matter was directed to be listed on 28-07-2025.
[Mohd. Mohsin Khan v. State of U.P, Writ – A No. 5129 of 2025, decided on 09-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner:- Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C
1. Writ Petition No. 58619 of 2015