Ritesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heard Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

¶12

This court entertained this petition on 30.10.2025 while directing the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and thereafter the matter was fixed for today. Instructions have been supplied by Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief learned Standing Counsel, submits that she is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and she does not propose to file any further affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶13

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari on 01.02.2017 and thereafter the writ petitioner was assigned to work of Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jankaura, Block Itawa, District Siddharth Nagar and was posted there as Secretary vide order dated 17.08.2024, however, on 05.06.2025 pursuant to the recommendation of the District Magistrate, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar, third respondent proceeded to suspend the writ petitioner on the allegations of financial misappropriation and irregularities noticed during an inquiry so set up with respect to the projects of MGNREGA to the tune of Rs. 15,99,575/-.

¶14

Questioning the suspension order, the writ petitioner has been filed the

¶15

WRIA No. 15935 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

present writ petition.

¶18

This Court entertained the writ petition on 29.10.2025 and thereafter on 30.10.2025 while passing the following orders:

¶19

29.10.2025

¶20

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶21

2. On the request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, put up tomorrow as fresh."

¶22

30.10.2025

¶23

"1. Contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be a Gram Panchayat Adhikari, who has been placed under suspension by District Panchayat Raj Officer, District- Siddharth Nagar on 05.06.2025 on the basis of the approval of District Magistrate dated 05.06.2025 on the basis of certain inquiry.

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he has not been served with any charge sheet. Relevant averment has been made in para-24 of the writ petition. Further contention is that there is no occasion to conduct any other enquiry on 13.10.2025 which presupposes a condition that the enquiry which was conducted earlier on the basis whereof the writ petitioner was placed under suspension was not appropriate.

¶25

3. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel seeks to obtain instructions.

¶26

4. Put up this case on 13.11.2025, as fresh."

¶27

Post passing of the order, today instructions have been forwarded under the signature of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar dated 11.11.2025 which is taken on record and marked as Appendix A.

¶28

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned suspension order dated 05.06.2025 seeking to suspend the writ petitioner on the approval of the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar cannot be sustained for the simple reason that post passing of the suspension order now a fact finding inquiry is being directed to be conducted under the orders of the Special Secretary, State of U.P. dated 13.10.2025 while constituting a three member committee. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that earlier pursuant to the order passed by the State Government, a committee

¶29

WRIA No. 15935 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

stood constituted on 23.04.2025 and the report stood submitted on 03.05.2025 pursuant whereto the District Magistrate proceeded to recommend suspension of the writ petitioner and consequently on 05.06.2025 the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. Submission is that once a fresh inquiry is directed to be conducted while constituting a three members committee on 13.10.2025 then there is no reason to rely upon earlier inquiry committee dated 03.05.2025 as the said inquiry would loose its efficacy with the passage of time when the direction came to be issued by the State Government on 13.10.2025 to hold another fresh fact finding inquiry. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner thus submits that the impugned suspension order cannot be sustained.

¶32

Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be there happens to be a fact finding inquiry dated 03.05.2025 noticing the fact that the writ petitioner was involved in irregularities to the tune of lakhs of rupees while defrauding the exchequer but she could not dispute the fact that on 13.10.2025 pursuant to an order passed by the State Government, a three members' committee has been constituted. She submits that though the suspension order be set aside with liberty to accorded to the authorities to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

¶34

Apparently, the writ petitioner while posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari/ Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jankaura, Block Itawa, District Siddharth Nagar was placed under suspension pursuant to the approval dated 05.06.2025 of the District Magistrate on 05.06.2025 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar. The instructions of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar 11.11.2025 depict that the suspension order was based upon the fact finding inquiry conducted on 03.05.2025 and the said instructions also acknowledges and accepts the fact that the new fact finding committee constituted to conduct fact finding inquiry by virtue of the order dated 13.10.2025.

¶35

In the opinion of the Court, once a fact finding inquiry is being sought to be ordered by virtue of the order dated 13.10.2025 and a three member committee has been constituted to probe and investigate and conduct inquiry

¶36

WRIA No. 15935 of 2025

¶37

4

¶38

with respect to the allegations so sought to be leveled in the shape of a fact finding inquiry then obviously the fact finding inquiry dated 03.05.2025 cannot be pressed into service to continue the writ petitioner under suspension.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:

¶40

(a). The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddharth Nagar placing the writ petitioner under suspension is set aside.

¶41

(b). Passing of the fresh order would not preclude the respondents to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶43

November 13, 2025 A. Prajapati

¶44

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶45

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ritesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Babu, Constable vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Prajapati vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Saket Bihari and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jiya Ram Verma vs Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Education, Ayodhya and Another

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Babloo Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others