Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48667 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9300 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchyat Raj Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit,Ram Vishal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.07.2025 whereby petitioner working on the post of Secretary of Gaon Sabha concerned has been suspended from service in contemplation of departmental proceedings. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed which is politically motivated and even otherwise has been instituted after more than three years of the alleged incident. It is also submitted that earlier a show cause notice was issued to petitioner to which a reply was also submitted but has not been considered while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that once a meeting of the Gaon Sabha is adjourned due to lack of quorum, the next meeting does not require to be adjourned on that ground. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order being politically motivated and being mala fide in nature, is required to be quashed. 4. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that there is no provision of law or in the service rules applicable upon petitioner for consideration of reply during preliminary inquiry while passing in order of suspension. It is also submitted that serious charges have been levelled against petitioner of forging the Minutes of Meeting and signatures of the Gaon Sabha members. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid, there is no interference required. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that serious allegations have been levelled against petitioner. There does not appear to be any provision whereby the reply submitted by petitioner during preliminary inquiry is required to be considered while passing of suspension order. There also does not appear to be any time boundation in initiating inquiry proceedings with regard to allegations of an incident which has taken place three years prior to passing of the suspension order. 6. It also appears from a perusal of the impugned order that the authority concerned has clearly applied his mind while passing of the suspension order. 7. In view thereof, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence. 8. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench