Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8453 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 483 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hari Bhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Govt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Sinha,Vijay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Order on Application for Amendment in the memo of petition 1. The present application has been filed with the prayer to amend the memo of writ petition. 2. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of present application is sufficient. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the memo of petition during the course of the day. 4. Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed. Order on writ petition 1. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petitioner has been filed for the following relief: "I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of suspension of petitioner bearing no. 7159-69/Stha. ka/1A(Anu./ADCO) dated 31.12.2024, passed by the respondent no. 2 as contained in annexure e no. 1 to this writ petition. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service at once treating the impugned suspension order as nonexistent and also to grant all the consequential benefits. III. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. IV. To allow the writ petition with all consequential benefits." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 31.12.2024 passed by Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension on account of the fact that in the daily newspaper named Dainik Jagran, it was reported that the District Cooperative Officer (petitioner) has been found to be accepting bribe in a video. Pursuant to which, a preliminary enquiry was conducted where also an affidavit has been filed by the complainant verifying the said footage. He has further submitted that the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, the preliminary enquiry has been conducted by one Mr. Praveen Kumar, Assistant Commissioner/ Assistant Registrar, Cooperatives, District- Ambedkar Nagar, against whom, on the previous occasion, the petitioner himself has recorded certain findings and consequently preliminary enquiry was conducted malafidely. Apart from the above, the complainant himself has stated on affidavit that the complaint is false and consequently there is no reason for proceeding against the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that in fact, the allegations are that the petitioner has demanded illegal gratification for an amount of 10,000/- from one Ram Nath, who is a former ₹ employee of the Cooperative Societies, with the promise that wages and permanency will be granted to him on the post he was working in case he gave 10,000/-. Then in pursuance of ₹ the aforesaid promise, Ram nath paid 7000/- to the petitioner ₹ which can be seen in the viral video which was made in presence of one Kamal Singh, who has also given an affidavit verifying said allegations. Accordingly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are based on evidences, therefore, the matter deserves to be inquired into. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein, in the meantime, chart-sheet along with covering letter dated 07.01.2025 has already been served upon the petitioner containing five charges pertaining to the same allegations. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already replied to the charges levelled against him. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that allegations are levelled against the petitioner on the basis of the news item which was published in the daily newpaper, namely, Dainik Jagaran based on a video which has become viral. From the said video, the petitioner can be seen accepting the bribe of ₹7000/- from one Ram Nath, former employee of Cooperative Societies, therefore, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, Assistant Commissioner/ Assistant Registrar, Cooperatives, District- Ambedkar Nagar. In his report dated 30.12.2024, he has recorded the statement of one Kamal Singh, Secy. B–PACCS, Mangalpuri, wherein he has stated on affidavit that the said video is true and correct without any cuttings and there has been no manipulation in the same. He has sustained all the allegations levelled against the petitioner. During the course of enquiry, Ram Nath was also examined and he has also filed affidavit verifying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. From the aforesaid material, Mr. Praveen Kumar has come to conclusion that aforesaid allegations are made out against the petitioner and relying upon those allegations, the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has passed impugned order dated 31.12.2024 with a direction to hold an disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and also place him under suspension. 7. Considering the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of mala fide done on the part of Mr. Praveen Kumar, I have also examined the enquiry report submitted by the petitioner (which is annexed at Annexure No.SA-2 to the affidavit sworn in on 23.01.2025). It is noticed that the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has, by means of his letter dated 22.08.2019, directed certain enquiry against the purchase and sale done by certain cooperative societies in the year of 2018–19, where certain documents were required from Mr. Praveen Kumar and despite directions being issued to him, he did not submit the said documents. It is also noticed that the enquiry was not directed against Mr. Praveen Kumar and wherein his reference has been come up with said enquiry where also the allegations are that Mr. Praveen Kumar did not produce the documents asked by the petitioner. Merely because his name figures in the said enquiry, it cannot be said that Mr. Praveen Kumar would be inimical to the petitioner inasmuch as, I do not find any findings recorded by the petitioner against Mr. Praveen Kumar in the said enquiry. Accordingly, the ground of Mala fide is not made out. From the above, I find that enquiry report is based on certain affidavits and materials which were received during the preliminary enquiry, and it cannot be said that there is no substance or material to proceed against the petitioner for conducting enquiry. 8. In a preliminary enquiry, the task is to verify the authenticity of the allegations levelled against the delinquent government servant and also the truthfulness of the allegations levelled therein. It is only if that is found that the allegations are correct, then necessary orders are to be passed for conducting the regular disciplinary proceeding, at that stage, the delinquent government servant would have adequate opportunity to lead evidence as to rebut all the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. Considering the nature of the allegations and also the material which were produced during the preliminary enquiry, I do not find that the order was mala fide or bereft of any reasoning. 9. Another ground which was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Kamal Singh has in fact filed an affidavit dated 26.12.2024 in favour of the petitioner which has been annexed along with the petition. It is surprising as well as questionable, as to how, the affidavit which was to be submitted to the Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperatives, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has found its way to the hand of the petitioner. Apart from the above, I find that aforesaid affidavit was supplied by the petitioner himself. Considering the affidavit having been filed by the petitioner and obtained from one of the key witnesses in the said case raises the question about the manner, in which, the petitioner is influencing the witnesses in the enquiry. Accordingly, these are the issues which would be considered by the Disciplinary Authority during the proceedings. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interference. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly, dismissed. 11. As the petitioner has already replied to the charges levelled against him. Considering the same, the respondents shall proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur,J.) Order Date :- 10.2.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench