Madhur Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta holding brief of Sri Amrish Tripathi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged on 02.03.2009 on contractual basis on the post of Additional Program Officer MGNREGA, however, a first information report bearing no. 4 of 2025 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be lodged. The writ petitioner was enlarged on bail and thereafter, a show cause notice came to be issued to the writ petitioner by the respondent no. 4, District Magistrate/District Program Coordinator MGNREGA, Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. requiring the writ petitioner to tender reply and the writ petitioner tendered his reply on 30.05.2025 which is Annexure-6 from page 25 to 32, however, now by virtue of order impugned dated 04.07.2025, the reply so submitted by the writ petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and the writ petitioner's services has been dispensed with.

¶11

Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶12

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that once a show cause notice is issued to which a reply is submitted then it is incumbent upon the author of the order to pass a reasoned and speaking order meeting the contention so raised in the reply. He submits that here the said exercise is lacking which tantamounts to violation of principles of

¶13

WRIA No. 4243 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

natural justice.

¶16

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that once the writ petitioner has committed a misconduct and he was facing criminal proceedings then a show cause notice came to be issued to which a reply was submitted and thereafter, an order came to be passed.

¶17

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

¶18

Plainly and simply, the ground taken by the writ petitioner to assail the order impugned that the contention so raised in reply to the show cause notice has not been considered. The order impugned dated 04.07.2025 is quoted hereinunder.-

¶19

"कायार्लय आदेशःः 1

¶20

श्री मधुर गुप्ता िवकास खण्ड कुम्भी-गोला में अितिरक्त कायर्क्रम अिधकारी, मनरेगा (संिवदा) के पद पर काय र ्त रहने के दौरान िदनोंक 22 माचर् 2025 को भ्रष्टाचार िनवारण संगठन की ट्रैप टीम द्वारा मुठ 50000.00 रु० (गु० पचास हजार रूपये मात्र) उत्कोच के रूप में लेते हुए रंगेहाथ िगरफ्तार कर िलया गया था. तत्पश्चात अधोक्षरी के कायार्लय पत्रांक 136/स्था०/ए०पी०ओ०/नोिटस/2025-26 िदनाँक 01.05.2025 द्वारा प्रकरण के सम्बंध में तीन (03) िबन्दुओं पर साक्ष्य सिहत स्पष्टीकरण चाहा गया। श्री मधुर गुप्ता िनवासी मोहल्ला पिश्चमी तखपेडा, मोहम्मदी जनपद लखीमपुर-खीरी द्वारा प्रस्तुत स्पष्टीकरण िदनॉक 30.05. 30.05.2025 जो िक 211 िबन्दुओं पर उपलब्ध कराया गया िजसका परीक्षण कराने पर स्पष्टीकरण पूणर्तः असन्तोषजनक पाया गया। िजससे िसद्ध होता है िक यह अपने कतर्व्यों एवं दाियत्वों के िनष्पादन में घोर िशिथलता बरतने एवं कदाचार के दोषी है।

¶21

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन ग्राम्य िवकास अनुभाग-7 के शासनादेश संख्या 7085/35-7-2010/एन०आर० ई०जी०ए०/2005 िदनॉक 27 िसतम्बर, 2010 के प्रस्तर 17 में स्पष्ट िनदेर्श िदये गये है, िक "अितिरक्त कायर्क्रम अिधकारी द्वारा अपने कतर्व्यों एवं दाियत्वों के िनष्पादन में िशिथलता तथा िकसी भी प्रकार का कदाचार पाये जाने पर उनकी सेवाएं तत्काल प्रनाव से समाप्त कर दी जायेंगी"।

¶22

अतः श्री मधुर गुप्ता, िनवासी मोहल्ला पिश्चमी लखपेडा, मोहम्मदी जनपद लखीमपुर खीरी जो िक िवकास खण्ड कुन्भी गोला में अितिरक्त कायर्क्रम अिधकारी, मनरेगा (संिवदा) के पद पर काय र ्त थे। उपरोक्त शासनादेश में उिल्लिखत व्यवस्था के अन्तगर्त इनकी अितिरक्त कायर्क्रम अिधकारी, मनरेगा (संिवदा) पद की सेवा तत्काल प्रभाव से समाप्त की जाती है।

¶23

(दुगार् शिक्त नागपाल) िजलािधकारी /

¶24

WRIA No. 4243 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

िजला कायर्क्रम समन्वयक, मनरेगा लखीमपुर-खीरी।"

¶27

A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the same is non speaking unreasoned and the reply so submitted by the writ petitioner has been found not to be satisfactory. In the opinion of the Court, once the reply submitted by the writ petitioner is running to 8 pages and contentions have been raised then it is a duty of the author of the order to consider the reply as in absence of doing so, the same would be violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms.-

¶29

(a) the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by District Magistrate/District Program Coordinator, MGNREGA, Lakhimpur Khiri, is set aside;

¶30

(b) the matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order;

¶31

For facilitation and early disposal, the certified copy of the order passed today self attested copy of the writ petition shall be produced before the concerned respondent by 09.05.2026 who shall pass an order within a period of two weeks.

¶32

The position as of today shall be maintained any reinstatement or grant of benefit shall be dependent upon further orders to be passed post remand.

¶33

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

¶34

Needless to point out that this Court has no adjudicated on the merits of the matter.

¶35

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶36

April 24, 2026 Rajesh

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhur Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhur Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko. and 5 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

Similar cases

Smt Rajbala vs Rajesh and Another

Vinay Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Gramya Vikas Lko. and 4 Others

Kashi and 2 Others vs Ashok and 5 Others

Ram Kewal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Sugar Industries Lko. and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar vs Sunil Chaudhary Chief Conservator of Forest Deptt U.P. Lko. and Another

Dhirendra Kumar Pandey vs Smt Suman Pandey and 6 Others