Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10425 (ALL)

ARSHAD MALIK v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/39723/2026 · 2026-09-29

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39723 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Girijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C.Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. An inquiry was initiated under provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules, 1997 against the petitioner that he has committed various irregularities in the work done during his tenure. 3. After considering the reply submitted by petitioner, respondent no.2 came to the conclusion that petitioner was prima facie found guilty of charges of irregularities and has caused loss to the State, though financial penalty was determined. 4. Admittedly, further proceedings as required under Section 27 of the Act read with Rule 256 (1) framed thereunder is still to be commenced for determination of surcharge, therefore, there is no irregularity in the preliminary inquiry, since petitioner has liberty to place his case as and when inquiry is initiated under aforesaid section in accordance with law. 5. Petitioner is further aggrieved that by the impugned order, his administrative powers has been seized. Court finds that administrative powers can be seized, only if some charge is proved against the petitioner, however, since his tenure has already been over, no adverse order can be passed under Rules, 1997, therefore, only on the basis of preliminary inquiry, which could be basis for proper inquiry for 'surcharge' but cannot be basis to pass impugned order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Grijesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Arshad Malik .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Accordingly, impugned order so far as later part is concerned is legally unsustainable. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order is interfered only to the extent of it later part, whereby petitioner is removed from the post of Administrator and it is directed that petitioner will continue to discharge administrative powers in terms of Government Orders dated 25.5.2026 and 29.5.2026 8. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. September 30, 2026 N. Sinha WRIC No. 39723 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad