Partly allowed

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024WRIA/1798/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench granted interim relief by staying the operation of a suspension order against a government employee. The court noted the charge of wrong geotagging was attributed to a subordinate, not the petitioner, and ordered stakeholders to file affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the operation of the impugned suspension order dated 29.02.2024 till the next date of hearing.

Vinod Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1798 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans,Shikha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned State Counsel.

¶6

The present writ has been preferred for quashing of the impugned suspension order dated 29.02.2024, passed by opposite party no. 3, District Development Officer, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on 20.02.2024, on Tehsil Diwas, a complaint was made by someone against the petitioner on which an inquiry was conducted. The Assistant Development Officer (ISB) has submitted a report to the Project Director, District Rural Development Officer, District Ambedkar Nagar that the charge of making wrong Geotag was against one Manoj Kumar, Gram Rojgar Sewak and not against the petitioner.

¶8

It is further submitted that after placing the petitioner under suspension, the explanation was sought from the petitioner by the Block Development Officer vide its letter dated 01.03.2024. It is further submitted that the impugned order of suspension has been passed without application of mind for the allegation which is not attributable to the petitioner and suspension order has been passed even before getting any reply of the petitioner.

¶9

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the said Gram Rojgar Sewak, Manoj Kumar, who was found guilty in the report dated 20.02.2024 works under the petitioner so the petitioner cannot absolve from his supervisory duties and liabilities.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records of the case, it is found that the petitioner has been placed under suspension for the charge which is not prima facie attributable to the petitioner and the same has been attributed to one Manoj Kumar, Gram Rojgar Sewak, as per inquiry report dated 20.02.2024 given by the Assistant Development Officer and the allegation in the impugned suspension order for payment of labour of 82 days under MNREGA scheme appears to be vague in nature.

¶11

Learned State counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner is granted two weeks' time thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

List immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned suspension order shall remain stayed.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 DiVYa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others