Manoj Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

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 an Assistant 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. 5261 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Learned Senior Advocate also submits that petitioner was on station leave from 20.03.2026 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 an Assistant 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 no station leave on 22.03.2026.

¶23

WRIA No. 5261 of 2026

¶24

3

¶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

Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

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

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

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

R.S. College of Education vs State of Up and 3 Others