Disposed

Ashish Kumar Rai v. State of U.P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025WRIA/18528/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Executive Officer of a Nagar Panchayat challenged his suspension order as based on vague charges. The court held the merits belonged to the departmental inquiry, directed its completion within two months, and kept the suspension order in abeyance until the inquiry concludes.

What did the court decide?

Departmental inquiry to conclude within two months; suspension order dated 15.11.2025 kept in abeyance till then.

Ashish Kumar Rai vs State of U.P and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 18528 of 2025

Ashish Kumar Rai

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Raghvendra Pratap Rajan : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has passed on instructions in the Court today, which are kept on record.

¶12

Heard Mrs. Archana Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶13

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2025, passed by respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension and a further prayer has been made to direct the respondent no.2 to revoke the suspension order dated 15.11.2025 and permit the petitioner to discharge his duty as an Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Martin Ganj, District-Azamgarh.

¶14

Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension order is based on vague and ambiguous charges, not mentioning about the inspection or any details of the purchasing, construction or man power supply in which certain illegality has been done by the petitioner. Thus, the suspension order based on such vague and ambiguous charges is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the name of the complainant has not been mentioned and from the letter of District

¶16

WRIA No. 18528 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Magistrate, Azamgarh dated 12.11.2025, it is clear that the petitioner has been given the charge of three Nagar Panchayats i.e. Nagar Panchayats, Martinganj, Nagar Panchayats, Budhanpur, Nagar Panchayats, Mahrajganj. It appears that annoyed by the fact that the petitioner has been given charge of three places, without mentioning any specific charge or allegation against the petitioner, the suspension order has been passed. In case there was any inefficiency on the part of the petitioner in performing duties at three places, the utmost which could have been done was to take away the charge/duty of other two places but for extraneous considerations, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶19

Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶20

This Court is of the considered opinion that the charges so levelled against the petitioner cannot be examined at this stage, inasmuch as the explanation and documents relied upon by the petitioner can be a defence in the departmental inquiry, as during departmental inquiry, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the departmental inquiry as initiated against the petitioner be brought to its logical end, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner shall co-operate in the said departmental inquiry.

¶22

Till conclusion of the department inquiry initiated against the petitioner, the order dated 15.11.2025, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶23

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶24

December 10, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh

¶25

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

Ashish Kumar Rai v. State of U.P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Rai v. State of U.P and 5 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

Dhananjay Kumar Yadav and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Dimple Singh and 12 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Smt. Laxmeen vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dayaram and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ram Naresh vs Managing Director Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others