# Rakesh Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1025
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 9033 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-nayak-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53849
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Raj Kr. Upadhyaya

Issues for consideration
How far the departmental proceedings are
justified if the incident pertains to the year 2015
and a charge-sheet has been issued to
petitioner for the first time after almost nine
years in 2024, when it would be virtually
impossible for him to defend himself by
production of any documentary evidence due to
passing of nine years?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 3 - In case delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings is unexplained,
prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of record. It is evident
that in case of such delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings, as in the present
case, where nine years have elapsed from the
date of incident to issuance of charge-sheet, it
would be virtually impossible for petitioner to
garner documents and evidence in his support.
(Para 20)

With
regard
to
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental proceedings against petitioner, it
is evident that allegations as indicated in the
charge-sheet pertain to the year 2015. It is
admitted in the counter affidavit that for the
first time a show cause notice was issued to
petitioner after almost six years on 16.11.2021
for awarding of censure entry under Rule-3 of
the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999, and for withholding of
integrity. There is no explanation as to why
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the first show cause notice was issued to
petitioner only after six years of the date
of incident. (Para 16)

It is also evident that subsequently decision was
taken for initiating departmental proceedings
whereafter the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023
was prepared but due to certain anomalies
therein,
an
amended
charge-sheet
dated
14.11.2024 was issued on 26.11.2024. Here
again, there is no narration or any
explanation as to why the opposite parties
took a further three years for initiating
departmental proceedings in terms of Rule
7 of the Rules of 1999 despite the fact
that pleadings have been made in writ
petition on the ground that departmental
proceedings were initiated with delay.
(Para 17)

The
only
allegation
leveled
against
petitioner is of negligence, which does not
amount
to
misconduct
as
also
for
unexplained
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental proceedings, the same are
clearly vitiated for being against judgements
propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Para
21)

Writ Petition No. 9033 of 2024 is allowed.

Writ-A No.6566 of 2023 has been filed
seeking only direction to the opposite parties
to promote petitioner from the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police to the post of
Additional Superintendent of Police (Pay Scale
of Rs. 15600-39100, Grade Pay Rs.7600/-
revised
pay
scale
Matrix
Pay
Level-12
Rs.78800-209200)
with
all
consequential
benefits w.e.f. 7.1.2022 to 13.01.2023, from
the
date,
when
similarly
situated
persons/juniors
to
the
petitioner
were
promoted
on
the
post
of
Additional
Superintendent of Police. (Para 26)

In view of Writ-A No.9033 of 2024 being
allowed, liberty is granted to petitioner to make
a fresh representation before opposite party
no.1 i.e. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Home
(Police
Services) Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow to consider and decide petitioner's
grievance. (Para 27)
Writ Petition No. 6566 of 2023 is disposed
of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

9 All. Rakesh Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025
petitioner yet at the same time
considering the provisions of 20(4) of the
Act 2016, alternative post has to be
identified for the petitioner. This is also as
per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ch. Joseph (supra).

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, writ petition is disposed of with
direction to the District Inspector of Schools
Barabanki i.e. the respondent no. 5 to act in
consonance with the provisions of the Act,
2016 and the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Joseph
(supra) by identifying a suitable post for the
petitioner with the same pay scale and service
benefits. If it is not possible to adjust him on
any post he be kept on a supernumerary post
till a suitable post is available or he attains the
age of superannuation whichever is earlier.

20. Let action in this regard be
taken by the respondent no. 5 within a
period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.

21. The other benefits as flow out
from the order being passed by the District
Inspector of Schools in pursuance of this
judgement would be accorded to the
petitioner within next six weeks of the
order passed by the District Inspector of
Schools.

22. The period from the date of
absence of the petitioner till an order is
passed in pursuance of this judgement of
alternative
appointment,
shall
be
regularized by the respondents as per rules.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1025
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 9033 of 2024
Connected with
Writ - A No. 6566 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Nayak ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rishi Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kr. Upadhyaya

Issues for consideration
How far the departmental proceedings are
justified if the incident pertains to the year 2015
and a charge-sheet has been issued to
petitioner for the first time after almost nine
years in 2024, when it would be virtually
impossible for him to defend himself by
production of any documentary evidence due to
passing of nine years?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999: Rule 3 - In case delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings is unexplained,
prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of record. It is evident
that in case of such delay in initiation of
departmental proceedings, as in the present
case, where nine years have elapsed from the
date of incident to issuance of charge-sheet, it
would be virtually impossible for petitioner to
garner documents and evidence in his support.
(Para 20)

With
regard
to
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental proceedings against petitioner, it
is evident that allegations as indicated in the
charge-sheet pertain to the year 2015. It is
admitted in the counter affidavit that for the
first time a show cause notice was issued to
petitioner after almost six years on 16.11.2021
for awarding of censure entry under Rule-3 of
the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999, and for withholding of
integrity. There is no explanation as to why
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the first show cause notice was issued to
petitioner only after six years of the date
of incident. (Para 16)

It is also evident that subsequently decision was
taken for initiating departmental proceedings
whereafter the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023
was prepared but due to certain anomalies
therein,
an
amended
charge-sheet
dated
14.11.2024 was issued on 26.11.2024. Here
again, there is no narration or any
explanation as to why the opposite parties
took a further three years for initiating
departmental proceedings in terms of Rule
7 of the Rules of 1999 despite the fact
that pleadings have been made in writ
petition on the ground that departmental
proceedings were initiated with delay.
(Para 17)

The
only
allegation
leveled
against
petitioner is of negligence, which does not
amount
to
misconduct
as
also
for
unexplained
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental proceedings, the same are
clearly vitiated for being against judgements
propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Para
21)

Writ Petition No. 9033 of 2024 is allowed.

Writ-A No.6566 of 2023 has been filed
seeking only direction to the opposite parties
to promote petitioner from the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police to the post of
Additional Superintendent of Police (Pay Scale
of Rs. 15600-39100, Grade Pay Rs.7600/-
revised
pay
scale
Matrix
Pay
Level-12
Rs.78800-209200)
with
all
consequential
benefits w.e.f. 7.1.2022 to 13.01.2023, from
the
date,
when
similarly
situated
persons/juniors
to
the
petitioner
were
promoted
on
the
post
of
Additional
Superintendent of Police. (Para 26)

In view of Writ-A No.9033 of 2024 being
allowed, liberty is granted to petitioner to make
a fresh representation before opposite party
no.1 i.e. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Home
(Police
Services) Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat,
Lucknow to consider and decide petitioner's
grievance. (Para 27)
Writ Petition No. 6566 of 2023 is disposed
of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and Anr., AIR
1990 SC 1308 (Para 7)
2.
State
of
Andhra
Pradesh
Vs.
N.
Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC, 154 (Para 7)
3. P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing
Board, AIR 2006 SC 207 (Para 7)
4. Union of India and Ors. Vs J. Ahmed, (1979)
2 SCC 286 (Para 15)

List of Acts
 U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999.

List of Keywords
 Service,
departmental
proceedings,
delay,
charge-sheet.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Rishi Raj
For
Respondent:
C.S.C.,
Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Raj learned
counsel
for
petitioner,
learned
State
Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and
Mr. R.K.Upadhyaya, learned counsel for
opposite party no.5.

2.
Petition
has
been
filed
challenging charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023
as
well
as
consequent
departmental
proceedings.
Further
prayers
are
for
quashing of the order dated 31.12.2022
initiating departmental proceedings for
imposition of major penalty as well as the
order dated 23.2.2023 and the charge-sheet
dated 26.11.2024.

3. It has been submitted that with
regard to an incident which took place in
the year 2015, a show cause notice was
issued to petitioner on 16.11.2021 which
was replied to by him, whereafter by means
9 All. Rakesh Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1027
of order dated 31.12.2022, reference was
made to the State Government for initiating
departmental proceedings for imposition of
major penalty.

4. In pursuance thereof, State
Government vide order dated 23.02.2023
granted
approval
for
initiation
of
departmental proceedings whereafter the
charge-sheet
dated
24.05.2023
was
prepared and was issued to the Enquiry
Officer for further issuance to petitioner.

5. It is submitted that however
upon receipt of the said charge-sheet, the
Enquiry Officer remitted the same to the
Disciplinary Authority for making certain
amendments in the charge-sheet and it is in
pursuance thereof that charge-sheet dated
26.11.2024 terming it to be an amended
charge-sheet was issued to petitioner to
which he has submitted his reply.
6. The primary gist of challenge to
aforesaid proceedings is that the incident
pertains to the year 2015 and a charge-sheet
has been issued to petitioner for the first
time with regard to such an incident after
almost nine years in 2024. It is submitted
that due to charge-sheet being issued
belatedly, prejudice has been caused to
petitioner since it would be virtually
impossible for him to defend himself by
production of any documentary evidence
due to passing of nine years.

7. Learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the judgements rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and
Anr. AIR 1990 SC 1308 as well as in the
case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.
Radhakrishnan reported in (1998) 4
SCC, 154 as well as P.V.Mahadevan vs.
M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board AIR
2006 SC 207.
8. Learned State Counsel has
refuted submissions advanced by learned
counsel for petitioner on the basis of
counter affidavit filed and submits that
earlier in pursuance of allegations leveled
against petitioner, a show cause notice had
been issued to him which was withdrawn
by the competent authority since it was felt
that a proper departmental proceedings
should be initiated against him in view of
serious allegations.

9. It is submitted that it is in
pursuance thereof that a charge-sheet was
prepared on 24.05.2023 but upon it being
sent to the Enquiry Officer, it was seen that
certain relevant aspects had not been
incorporated therein due to which a need
was felt for correction of anomalies and
thereafter
the
charge-sheet
dated
26.11.2024 has been issued to which
petitioner has already replied and the
departmental
proceedings
shall
be
concluded expeditiously.

10. It is submitted that petitioner
does not acquire any vested right for
quashing of departmental proceedings
merely on the basis of certain delay. It is
submitted that even otherwise no delay has
occurred since the said aspect has already
been indicated in the counter affidavit as
recorded herein above.

11.
Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for parties and perusal of material on
record, the facts as indicated herein above
are admitted between the parties.

12.A perusal of the charge-sheet
dated 13.11.2024/26.11.2024 indicates that
primary gist of allegations leveled against
petitioner pertain to negligence on his part
in investigation of Case Crime No.471 of
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2015 registered under Section 302 IPC read
with section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act. The
narration in charge-sheet indicates the
investigation which was undertaken by
petitioner by calling of witness and of
recording their statements.

13. The allegations primarily is that
the
entire
investigation
which
was
conducted by petitioner by recording of
statements of witnesses was not indicated
in the general diary as is required in terms
of procedure of investigation. It is also
indicated that the investigation was not
recorded in terms of Section 55 of Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973.

14. A perusal of the aforesaid
charge-sheet therefore clearly indicates that
the entire gist of allegations leveled against
petitioner is of negligence in recording the
conduct of investigation.

15. The aspect whether negligence
comes within the purview of misconduct
has already been considered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and Ors. vs J. Ahmed reported in
(1979) 2 SCC 286. The relevant paragraph
of the aforesaid judgment is as follows:-

 11. Code of conduct as set out in
the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the
conduct expected of a member of the
service. It would follow that that conduct
which is blameworthy for the Government
servant in the context of Conduct Rules
would be misconduct. If a servant conducts
himself in a way inconsistent with due and
faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is
misconduct [see Pierce v. Foster(1)]. A
disregard of an essential condition of the
contract
of
service
may
constitute
misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle
.(Indicator
Newspapers)
(2)]. This view
was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad
Tiwari
v.
Divisional
Superintendent,
Central
Railway,
Nagpur
Division,
Nagpur(1) and Satubha K. Vaghela v.
Moosa Raza(2). The High Court has noted
the definition of misconduct in Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:

 "Misconduct means, misconduct
arising from ill motive; acts of negligence,
errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do
not constitute such misconduct".

 In
industrial
jurisprudence
amongst
others,
habitual
or
gross
negligence constitute misconduct but in
Management, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v.
Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik(3), in the
absence of standing orders governing the
employee's
undertaking,
unsatisfactory
work was treated as misconduct in the
context of discharge being assailed as
punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Unio nof
India(4), the mamnner in which a member
of the service discharged his quasi judicial
function disclosing abuse of power was
treated as constituting misconduct for
initiating disciplinary proceedings. A single
act of omission or error of judgment would
ordinarily not constitute misconduct though
if such error or omission results in serious
or atrocious consequences the same may
amount to misconduct as was held by this
Court in P.H. Kalayani v. Air France,
Calcutta(5), wherein it was found that the
two mistakes committed by the employee
while checking the load-sheets and balance
charts would involve possible accident to
the aircraft and possible loss of human life
and, therefore, the negligence in work in
the context of serious consequences was
treated as misconduct. It is, however,
difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or
attainment
of
highest
standards
in
discharge of duty attached to public office
9 All. Rakesh Kumar Nayak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1029
would ipso facto constitute misconduct.
There may be negligence in performance of
duty and a lapse in performance of duty or
error of judgment in evaluating the
developing situation may be negligence in
discharge of duty but would not constitute
misconduct
unless
the
consequences
directly attributable to negligence would be
such as to be irreparable or the resultant
damage would be so heavy that the degree
of culpability would be very high. An error
can be indicative of negligence and the
degree of culpability may indicate the
grossness of the negligence. Carelessness
can often be productive of more harm than
deliberate wickedness or malevolence.
Leaving aside the classic example of the
sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the
enemy to slip through, there are other more
familiar instances of which a railway
cabinman signals in a train on the same
track where there is a stationary train
causing headlong collision; a nurse giving
intravenous injection which ought to be
given intramuscular causing instantaneous
death; a pilot overlooking an instrument
showing snag in engine and the aircraft
crashes
causing
heavy
loss
of
life.
Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil
[see Navinchandra Shakerchand shah v.
Manager, Ahmedabad Co- op. Department
Stores Ltd.(1)]. But in any case, failure to
attain the highest standard of efficiency in
performance
of
duty
permitting
an
inference
of
negligence
would
not
constitute misconduct nor for the purpose
of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would
indicate lack of devotion to duty."

16. With regard to delay in
initiation of departmental proceedings
against petitioner, it is evident that
allegations as indicated in the charge-sheet
pertain to the year 2015. It is admitted in
the counter affidavit that for the first time a
show cause notice was issued to petitioner
after almost six years on 16.11.2021 for
awarding of censure entry under Rule-3 of
the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules,
1999,
and
for
withholding of integrity. There is no
explanation as to why the first show cause
notice was issued to petitioner only after
six years of the date of incident.

17. It is also evident from perusal
of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter
affidavit that subsequently decision was
taken
for
initiating
departmental
proceedings whereafter the charge-sheet
dated 24.05.2023 was prepared but due to
certain anomalies therein, an amended
charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024 was issued
on 26.11.2024. Here again, there is no
narration or any explanation as to why the
opposite parties took a further three years
for initiating departmental proceedings in
terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999
despite the fact that pleadings have been
made in paragraph-22 of the writ petition
on
the
ground
that
departmental
proceedings were initiated with delay.

18. The aspect of delay in initiating
of
departmental
proceedings
against
delinquent employee and prejudice caused
to such employee has clearly been
adjudicated upon by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bani Singh (supra) in
the following manner:-

 "4.The appeal against the order
dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the
ground that the Tribunal should not have
quashed the proceedings merely on the
ground of delay and laches and should
have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide
the matter on merits. We are unable to
agree with this contention of the learned
counsel. The irregularities which were the
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subject matter of the enquiry is said to have
taken place between the years 1975-1977.
It is not the case of the department that they
were not aware of the said Irregularities, if
any-and-came-to-know-it-only-in-1987.
According to them even in April, 1977
there was doubt about the involvement of
the officer in the said irregularities and the
investigations were going on since then. If
that is so, it is unreasonable to think that
they would have taken more than 12 years
to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as
stated by the Tribunal. There is no
satisfactory explanation for the inordinate
delay in issuing the charge memo and we
are also of the view that it will be unfair to
permit the departmental enquiry to be
proceeded with at this stage.

 In any case there are no grounds
to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and
accordingly we dismiss this appeal."

19.
The
same
analogy
has
thereafter been enunciated in the case of N.
Radha Krishnan (supra) in the following
manner:-

 "19. It is not possible to lay down
any pre-determined principles applicable
to all cases and in all situations where
there
is
delay
in
concluding
the
disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that
ground the disciplinary proceedings are to
be terminated each case has to be
examined on the facts and circumstances in
that case. the essence of the matter is that
the court has to take into consideration all
relevant factors and to balance and weight
them to determine if it is in the interest of
clean and honest administration that the
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed
to terminate after delay particularly when
delay is abnormal and there is no
explanation for the delay. The delinquent
employee has a right that disciplinary
proceedings against him are concluded
expeditiously and he s not made to
undergo mental agony and also monetary
loss
when
these
are
unnecessarily
prolonged without any fault on his part in
delaying the proceedings. In considering
whether
delay
has
vitiated
the
disciplinary proceedings the Court has to
consider the nature of charge, its
complexity and on what account the delay
has occurred. if the delay is unexplained
prejudice to the delinquent employee is
writ large on the face of it. It could also
be seen as to how much disciplinary
authority is serious in pursuing the
charges against its employee. It is the
basic principle of administrative justice
that
an
officer
enterusted
with
a
particular job has to perform his duties
honestly, efficiently and in accordance
with the rules. If he deviates from this
path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed.
Normally,
disciplinary
proceedings
should be allowed to take its course as
per relevant rules but then delay defeats
justice. Delay causes prejudice to the
charged officer unless it can be shown
that he is to or when there is proper
explanation for the delay in conducting
the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately,
the court is to balance these two diverse
consideration.

20.
Upon
applicability
of
aforesaid judgments in the present case, it
is thus evident as enunciated by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in case delay in initiation
of
departmental
proceedings
is
unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent
employee is writ large on the face of
record. It is evident that in case of such
delay
in
initiation
of
departmental
proceedings, as in the present case, where
nine years have elapsed from the date of
9 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1031
incident to issuance of chargesheet, it would be virtually impossible for
petitioner to garner documents and
evidence in his support.

21. In view of discussion made
herein above, it being evident that the only
allegation leveled against petitioner is of
negligence, which does not amount to
misconduct as also for unexplained delay in
initiation of departmental proceedings, the
same are clearly vitiated for being against
judgements
propounded
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court as indicated herein above.

22. Since it is on record that the
charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 already
stands withdrawn with issuance of a fresh
charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024/26.11.2024,
there is no requirement to quash the same.
Consequently the departmental proceedings
initiated against petitioner in pursuance of
charge-sheet dated 26.11.2024 is hereby
quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari.

23. The orders dated 31.12.2022 and
23.02.2023 granting approval for initiation of
departmental proceedings against petitioner
are resultantly quashed by issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari.

24. Resultantly, the Writ Petition
No.9033 of 2024 succeeds and is allowed.

25. Parties to bear their own costs.

26. So far as Writ-A No.6566 of
2023 is concerned, it has been filed seeking
only direction to the opposite parties to
promote petitioner from the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police to the post of
Additional Superintendent of Police (Pay
Scale of Rs. 15600-39100, Grade Pay
Rs.7600/- revised pay scale Matrix Pay
Level-12
Rs.78800-209200)
with
all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 7.1.2022 to
13.01.2023, from the date, when similarly
situated persons/juniors to the petitioner were
promoted
on
the
post
of
Additional
Superintendent of Police.

27. In view of Writ-A No.9033 of
2024 being allowed, liberty is granted to
petitioner to make a fresh representation
before opposite party no.1 i.e. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary,Department of
Home (Police Services) Government of
U.P.,
Civil
Secretariat,
Lucknow
to
consider and decide petitioner's grievance
as indicated herein above.

28. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that salary for suspension period i.e.
from 1 July, 2020 till 12 April 2021 has already
been granted and therefore no directions with
regard to same are required to be made.

29. Appropriate orders with regard
to directions issued hereinabove shall be
ensured within a period of eight weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is served upon the said authority.

30. With the aforesaid directions,
Writ
Petition
No.6566
of 2023
is
accordingly disposed of.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1031
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - A No. 10799 of 2025

Smt. Deepika Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents