Disposed¶27

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Apr 2026WRIA/5245/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Junior Engineer, Nagar Nigam Shahjahanpur; suspension order dated 25.03.2026 not interfered with; removal and damage of four statues of martyrs at Town Hall Campus by M/s Fly Infratech during beautification/development work; station leave on 22.03.2026 not a defence for engineer supervising construction work; FIR against construction agency does not absolve employee of duties; charge sheet to be submitted expeditiously; WRIT - A No. 5245 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Shamshery, J.; decided April 15, 2026.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the suspension order; writ petition disposed of with the direction that the charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted expeditiously. ¶27

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the suspension order; writ petition disposed of with the direction that the charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted expeditiously.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should interfere with the impugned suspension order dated 25.03.2026 passed against the petitioner, a Junior Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, in respect of the removal and damage of four statues of martyrs during development work executed by the construction agency.

¶12

Court's answer

There is sufficient material and reasons to put the petitioner under suspension, since he failed to take proper precaution in advance for removal of the statues for the purpose of development work.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

It was not much denied that the petitioner was looking after the construction work; as such he failed to take proper safeguards in advance to protect the statues and cannot escape responsibility on the ground that he was on station leave on 22.03.2026.

¶22

Key takeaways

The lodging of a First Information Report against the construction agency does not absolve the petitioner from his duties.ratio¶26
On the material available there is no reason to interfere with the impugned suspension order; the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted expeditiously.ratio¶27
At this stage it is not on record whether the permission to leave station was granted even post facto.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) disposed of a writ petition (WRIT - A No. 5245 of 2026, decided April 15, 2026) by a Junior Engineer of Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur challenging his suspension order dated 25.03.2026, which followed the removal and damage of four statues of martyrs at the Town Hall Campus during beautification/development work executed by agency M/s Fly Infratech, Lucknow in the night of 22/23.03.2026. The Court found sufficient material and reasons to sustain the suspension: it was not much denied that the petitioner was looking after the construction work, he failed to take proper safeguards/precaution in advance for removal of the statues, and he could not escape responsibility on the ground that he was on station leave on 22.03.2026. The FIR lodged against the construction agency did not absolve him of his duties, and it was not on record whether his leave permission was granted even post facto. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5245 of 2026

Pramod Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., R.B. Singh Parmar

¶9

Court No. - 32

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Singh Parmar, learned counsel for Respondent-3.

¶12

Petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur and presently he is under suspension by way of impugned order dated 25.03.2026 and a disciplinary proceeding is also contemplated.

¶13

It is alleged that on 24.03.2026 for the purpose of beautification / development of Town Hall Campus of Nagar Nigam, the concerned agency, namely, M/s Fly Infratech, Lucknow, has removed four statues of martyrs situated at the campus in a very objectionable way, which has caused damage to statues also and petitioner being Junior Engineer has not taken due care for execution of said work.

¶14

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that statues were removed by construction agency without informing concerned authorities in the night of 22/23.03.2026 and for that he refers a short inquiry report dated 24.03.2026, therefore, the entire fault was of construction agency and not of any officer including petitioner.

¶15

WRIA No. 5245 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Learned Senior Advocate also submits that petitioner was on station leave from 21.03.2026 to 22.03.2026 and he has already applied for permission to leave the Headquaters, which was granted also. Therefore, petitioner cannot be held guilty even prima facie for removal of statues.

¶18

Learned Senior Advocate further submits that now the statues have already been established at proper place with proper respect and damage, if any, is also repaired.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-3 submits that petitioner being a Junior Engineer was responsible to look after construction work especially when statues were removed or displaced. He cannot put entire responsibility on construction agency. The work was done under supervision of petitioner and others.

¶20

I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record.

¶21

A fact which is not under much dispute is that in the night of 22/23.03.2026 four statues of martyrs were removed by construction agency without permission, which got damaged and it was serious taken note by public at large also though later on it appears that statues were properly established at appropriate place.

¶22

The Court also takes note that it may be a case that petitioner was on station leave or he was not present when statues were removed as well as it may be a case that construction agency has not informed authorities including petitioner and others but it has not been much denied that petitioner was looking after construction work and that he had no knowledge that for the purpose of development work statues have to be removed. Therefore, petitioner has not taken proper safeguards in advance to protect the statues. He cannot run away from responsibility that he was on station leave on 22.03.2026.

¶23

WRIA No. 5245 of 2026

¶24

¶25

The Court finds that there are sufficient material and reasons to put petitioner under suspension since he has failed to take proper precaution in advance for removal of statues for the purpose of development work.

¶26

The Court also takes note that though a First Information Report has been lodged against construction agency, however, it will not absolve petitioner from his duties. At this stage, it is also not on record, whether permission to leave station was granted even post facto.

¶27

In aforesaid circumstances, on basis of material available, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned suspension order and this writ petition is disposed of that charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted expeditiously.

¶28

April 15, 2026 AK

¶29

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Ram Narayan Upadhyay and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management, Shri Durga Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Committee of Management Sajida Girls Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others