Shami Ashraf vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

This court entertained the writ petition on 30.10.2025 by seeking instructions from the learned Standing Counsel. The instructions have been forwarded by the learned Standing Counsel dated 03.11.2025 under the signature of the District Panchayatraj Officer, Fatehpur. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he is equipped with all the inputs and he does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition will be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

¶14

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at fresh stage.

¶15

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Safai Karmi on 01.11.2008.

¶16

According to the writ petitioner, the District Panchayatraj Officer, Fatehpur on the basis of the information so submitted by the Block Development Officer, Asothar, on 09.09.2025 and the complaint dated 13.08.2025, while visiting the place in question during inquiry, it transpired that the writ petitioner being a Safai Karmi work was not satisfactory. The writ petitioner used to be absent without any authorisation and the drains were full of garbage and they were not clean and the villagers informed the author of the order that the writ petitioner as a Safai Karmi used to go for

¶17

WRIA No. 15962 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

cleaning only once or twice in a month. Thus, the writ petitioner was proceeded with inquiry and he was placed under suspension in contemplation of inquiry.

¶20

Questioning the suspension order dated 10.09.2025, the present writ petition has preferred.

¶21

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner argues that the suspension order cannot be sustained for the sake of reason, that it is as vague as possible. There is nothing on report to even demonstrate or show as to on which date the writ petitioner was absent and not performed his duties and further according to him, there are various factors attributable to the drains being choked or dirty as it is a matter of common knowledge that the moment the drains are clean, then within a passage of time, they become dirty, choked and flooded with garbage which is being thrown on the drains. Writ petitioner in discharge of his duty had never been negligent and the writ petitioner was performing his duties sincerely. According to him, major punishment cannot be imposed in case the allegations are taken into face value in view of the statutory Rules. He, however, submits that writ petitioner shall participate in the inquiry and shall cooperate and he is not shy to face the inquiry as according to him truth should be surfaced.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions, submits that perusal of the suspension order reveals that there are charges and allegations against the writ petitioner in not performing the duties satisfactorily which had been entrusted to him. Argument is that the writ petitioner being a sweeper is supposed to maintain cleanliness and while he is marking his attendance, but he does not discharge the duties. He further summits that a charge sheet has also been issued on 25.10.2025. He however submits that though the impugned suspension order be set aside, but the inquiry be directed to be conducted and finalized and a direction be issued to inquire the writ petitioner to participate in the inquiry.

¶23

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

¶24

Apparently, the writ petitioner is a sweeper and the allegation is regarding non-keeping of cleanliness in the drains on account whereof garbage stood assimilated. This Court, at this juncture, is not required to delve into the merit of the allegations. However, looking into the nature of

¶25

WRIA No. 15962 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

the allegations and also the fact that the charge sheet has been issued on 25.10.2025 and the writ petitioner acknowledges the receipt of the same, thus the writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:

¶28

A. The suspension order dated 10.09.2025, placing the writ petitioner in suspension by the District Panchayatraj Officer, Fatehpur as Safai Karmi is set aside .

¶29

B. The passing of the order will not preclude the inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry and to conclude the proceedings at the end of the district authority within a period of 3 months.

¶30

C. The counsel for the writ petitioner as per the instructions received from his client submits that the writ petitioner shall participate in the proceedings and he shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

¶31

D. Thus it is provided that the inquiry proceedings shall be conducted and concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of the production of the certified copy of the order.

¶32

E. In case the writ petitioner does not participate and intentionally avoids that the district authority is free to proceed with the matter and to pass appropriate orders looking into the gravity of the charges.

¶33

With the said observation, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶34

November 6, 2025 Anjali

¶35

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shami Ashraf v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shami Ashraf v. State of U.P. and 4 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

M/S Prabha - Mvomni (Jv) vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

Indramani Singh vs Dr. Semmaran M. Conservator of Forest, Devi Patan Circle U.P. Gonda

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priyanka Rani vs State of Up and 2 Others