Disposed

Shabban v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025WRIA/15965/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Nagar Panchayat employee placed under suspension over vague allegations after refusing to act as witness in an inquiry against a clerk. The court directed the inquiry to be concluded within three months after issuing a proper show cause notice, keeping the suspension in abeyance meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Suspension kept in abeyance till inquiry concludes; inquiry to be completed within three months with show cause notice and reply.

Shabban vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 15965 of 2025

Shabban

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, vide which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet was given to one Surendra Kumar, who was working as a clerk in Nagar Panchayat, Katra, Shahjahanpur. The petitioner was required to be the witness in the aforesaid inquiry, which was being conducted against Surendra Kumar, when he refused therefor, annoyed by the same the respondent no. 2 placed the petitioner under suspension with vague allegations. He further submits that from the allegations as mentioned in the suspension order it cannot be said that which allegations have to be seen to prove the petitioner guilty and if the same warrant major punishment, therefore, the impugned suspension order is illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

Mr. Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 could not answer the aforesaid fact as to what allegations are there against the petitioner, which are not clearly mentioned in the suspension order, however he submits that the inquiry in the matter will be concluded within a period of three months.

¶14

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the respondent authorities to

¶15

WRIA No. 15965 of 2025

¶16

¶17

conclude the inquiry after giving proper show cause notice mentioning allegations against the petitioner and considering his reply thereto, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

Till the conclusion of inquiry, the suspension order shall be kept in abeyance.

¶19

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The inquiry shall be concluded independently and in accordance with law.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶23

November 13, 2025 DS

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shabban v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabban v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Vipin Chandra Verma vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shishpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Kalpana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajman Nishad vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vimla vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others