Dharmendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The case of the writ petitioner is that he is presently posted as Moharrir (Judicial) Peshkar of Tahsildar, Tahsil Maitha, District Kanpur Dehat, since 2024. Earlier, in the year 2022, he was posted as Typist in the Collectorate, and in the year 2023, he was given the charge of Ahalmad of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat. The writ petitioner also claims that he was suspended on 19.3.2023, a charge sheet was issued on 10.11.2023, he submitted a reply on 30.11.2023, and thereafter, on 19.12.2023, he was reinstated in service and the suspension order was revoked. Since December 2023, he has been posted as Moharrir (Judicial) Peshkar of Tahsildar, Tahsil Maitha, District Kanpur Dehat. However, on 3.11.2025, two orders came to be passed. By the impugned order dated 3.11.2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. On the same date, i.e., 3.11.2025, he has been transferred. On 12.11.2025, this Court proceeded to pass the following orders:-

¶12

" Learned counsel for the writ petitioner confines the present writ petition with respect to the challenge to the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat placing the writ petitioner under suspension and seeks to withdraw the present writ petition wherein the challenge has been raised to the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Administration transferring the writ petitioner with liberty to another writ petition questioning the transfer order. Contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the impugned suspension order dated 03.11.2025 is vague, particularly, when the writ petitioner

¶13

WRIA No. 16836 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

happens to be the Ahlmad of the ADM in the office of the ADM (E), Kanpur Dehat and on the basis of the complaint so lodged on 03.11.2025 that the writ petitioner with respect to fine to be deposited to the money and did not deposit the said amount, the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension.

¶16

Shri P.S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to produce before this Court a complete instructions bringing on record the copy of the complaint as well as the posting of the writ petitioner in the office. Put up this case on 19.11.2025 as fresh. "

¶17

Pursuant to the said order, instructions have been produced under the signature of the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, dated 15.11.2025, which are taken on record and marked as Appendix A.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the allegations which have been made the basis of suspending the petitioner on 03.11.2025 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the said allegations are as vague as possible and they do not portray any misconduct so as to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶19

The submission is that from the perusal of the allegations contained in the suspension order, the allegation is that one Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, resident of Dwarikaganj, Jhinjak, PS Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, on 3.11.2025, in a public hearing (from 10-12 hours), had submitted an affidavit along with a complaint in which, it was alleged that the complainant has a sweet meat shop and he, along with his son Rajat Gupta, were there. The petitioner, while working as Ahalmad in the office of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat, allegedly took Rs.8,000 (Rs.5,000/- as fine and Rs.3,000/- as miscellaneous expenses) but did not deposit the said amount. Pursuant to this, recovery proceedings came to be issued by virtue of the recovery certificate dated 27.10.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is quite paradoxical and amazing that the raid was conducted in the year 2018 and the complainant, who owns a small sweet meat shop, waited for seven years to lodge the complaint, as according to him, it is a matter of common knowledge that the services of an expert are always taken into account while engaging a lawyer to pursue a case, and nobody can tender the said amount without any receipt. He further submits that the petitioner was in charge of the office of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat, for approximately eleven months. He further submits that there cannot be a deep slumber, while making allegation by the complainant. He further submits that on 03.11.2025

¶20

WRIA No. 16836 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

itself, a complaint on affidavit was filed, and on the same day, without conducting any preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension. He also submits that the petitioner is not shy to face the inquiry, and to a maximum limit, a minor punishment can be imposed, thus the suspension order cannot be sustained.

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be, once it has come to the notice of the authority that illegal gratification, in the guise of depositing the said amount as fine, had been taken and the said amount was not deposited, then it is a very serious matter. After all, corruption is to be weeded out from the very threshold. He further submits that there happens to be a charge sheet also on 14.11.2025, and the inquiry be directed to be conducted in that regard.

¶24

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

¶25

Apparently, the services of the petitioner are covered under the provisions of the UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension by the authority who is not empowered to suspend the petitioner. Furthermore, at the stage of suspension, this Court is not to go into the merits of the charges. However, what would be required is that there should be a reflection of the prima facie satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to suspend a government servant. Here, the Court finds that on the basis of the affidavit dated 03.11.2025 of the owner of the sweet meat shop, who claims to be the complainant, it appears that the petitioner had taken Rs.8,000/- (Rs.5,000/to deposit as fine and Rs.3,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses) and the same was not deposited. When the receipt was asked to be furnished, dilatory tactics were adopted and the same was not supplied. As a result, a Recovery Certificate (RC) came to be issued. This Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not required to go into the merits of the charge and conduct an inquiry, as the same is a subject matter of inquiry proceedings. As a matter of fact, this Court does not find any error in suspending the petitioner in view of the allegations contained therein, which, according to the Court, are prima facie sufficient to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶26

Accordingly, the interference is declined. The petition stands disposed of ,

¶27

WRIA No. 16836 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

requiring the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding shall be conducted by the disciplinary authority within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶30

The subsistence allowance shall be paid as per the rules.

¶31

November 19, 2025

¶32

N.S.Rathour

¶33

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶34

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

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Priyanka Rani vs State of Up and 2 Others

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

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