Disposed

Arvind Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2020WRIC/10611/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a discretionary order in a writ petition challenging an order passed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. The court observed that the final enquiry was ongoing and expected to complete in one month. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without a decision on the merits, directing the authority to conclude the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Pending enquiry to conclude within one month, impugned order stayed.

Arvind Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10611 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Dubey,Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Learned standing counsel has obtained instructions, which are taken on record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.6.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereas the impugned order has been passed under section 27 of the Act without following the procedure prescribed under it. He has also referred to Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules which were also not complied with. He further submits that the impugned order could not be passed without compliance of Section 27 and Rules 256 and 257 of the U.P.Panchayat Raj Rules.

¶8

Learned additional chief standing counsel submits that the final enquiry is going on and is expected to be completed within a period of one month.

¶9

No fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending in view of the statement made by the learned additional chief standing counsel that the finial enquiry is going to be completed within a period of one month.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 to conclude the final enquiry in the matter within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of this order. It is made clear that till the conclusion of the final enquiry the impugned order dated 1.6.2020 shall remain stayed.

¶11

The petitioner shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned.

¶12

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶13

authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.9.2020 samz

Arvind Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Punam Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Small Transporter Motor Transport Cooperative Societies Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Gulnaz Begum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhu Narayan Union Club and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Maya Sharma Vs Sri Brahmdeo Ram Tiwari, Vice-Chairman