MANGAL PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. PANCHYAT RAJ VIBHAG U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/11547/2024 · 2025-04-17
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169376 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169376 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21704 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11547 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mangal Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchyat Raj Vibhag U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2.Mr.Brijesh Kumar Singh, present District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bahraich is present in compliance of order dated 21.3.2025 passed by this Court. He tendered his unconditional apology and submits that in future, he shall give instructions to the learned standing counsel in time, as directed by this Court. 3.A coordinate Bench of this court has passed the following
order on 3.12.2024 :
"1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, who is a class IV employee, has been placed under suspension by means of the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bahraich. It has been submitted that the allegations in the impugned
order pertaining to the petitioner is of ending messages with regard to the false allegations of sexual harassment by District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bahraich himself. It has further been submitted in the impugned order that the victim has also made a complaint to the District Magistrate in this regard. It is submitted that the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bahraich, who had passed the said order was, in fact, already promoted prior to passing of the impugned order and consequently the order is without jurisdiction. 3. Let learned Standing counsel receive instructions with regard to veracity of the allegations as mentioned in the impugned order of suspension dated 12.11.2024 and shall also inform this Court by the next date of listing as to whether District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bahraich was holding the post at the time when the impugned order was passed. 4. List on 19.12.2024 in top ten cases." 4.Learned standing counsel on the basis of written instructions submits that the ground on which this petition has been filed is mis-conduct. The concerned District Panchayat Raj Officer, though was promoted vide order dated 5.11.2024 but since no separate orders were passed by the State Government as provided in the aforesaid order, therefore, on the relevant date, i.e. on 12.11.2024, when the petitioner was placed under suspension, he was still holding the charge of DPRO and that is
why the suspension order came to be passed. He further submits that in regard to the concerned college, namely Kisan Post Graduate College, a list of girl students was provided by the City Magistrate which shows that there is no such girl studying in that college as is alleged in the Whatsapp post of the petitioner. Not only this, it is submitted that no such girl as alleged in the Whatsapp post resides in village Mahsi or tehsil. It is submitted that motivated post on the Whatsapp was posted by the petitioner who is a class-IV employee. Thus, considering the serious mis-conduct which if proved will entail major penalty, the petitioner has rightly been placed under suspension. It is next submitted that the charge sheet is dated 23.11.2024, for which at multiple times, endeavour was made to serve the petitioner, however, he is avoiding service thereof and ultimately, it could be served on the petitioner on 4.3.2025.
Till date, no reply to the charge sheet has been filed by the petitioner and he is not cooperating in the enquiry. 5.In view of the above, considering the fact that the DPRO was holding the charge on 12.11.2024 when the suspension order was passed as also the fact that the charge sheet has already been served to the petitioner and considering the conduct of the petitioner which prima facie is in violation of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, I find no illegality in the impugned suspension order. 6.The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench