VIVEK ROY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Morning Session The specific case of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of passing of suspension order dtd. 10/11/2024 neither departmental inquiry was contemplated nor was pending against the petitioner as specifically averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Incidentally U.P. Pollution Control Board though has filed its counter affidavit but as per the reply given thereto in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit the said averments have been indicated to be false, incorrect, misleading and devoid of merit without adverting or replying to specific averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.

(2.) The aforesaid statement is recorded and the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

(3.) Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishan Baghel and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3.