Sadashiv vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Heard Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Shreya Agarwal and Sri Akber Ahmad, Advocate appearing for respondent no. 9.

¶11

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought direction to the State Government to take decision on the preliminary inquiry report and further to initiate inquiry under Section 29 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 for removal of respondent no. 9 from the post of Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an elected member of Zila Panchayat, Banda and is a public spirited person and a resident of District Banda and has made a written complaint against functioning of respondent no. 9 to the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Division highlighting several misconducts including financial embezzlement against respondent no. 9.

¶13

It is on the complaint made by the petitioner that a three member committee which included the Additional Commissioner

¶14

WRIC No. 650 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

(Administration), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, Chief Development Officer, Banda and Joint Director (Treasury), Chitrakoot Dham, Division, Banda. An inquiry was conducted and submitted a report dated 28.01.2025 and forwarded the same to the Commissioner, Chidrakoot Dham Division, Banda on 29.01.2025, where it was found that large scale financial embezzlement has been done by respondent no. 9 and accordingly regular enquiry was proposed in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

¶17

Grievance of petitioner is that despite submission of preliminary inquiry report, as mandated under the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats & Zila Panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs, Up-Pramukhs, Adhyakshas & Uppadhyakshas) Enquiry Rules, 1997, after submission of report of the three member committee, the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda vide order dated 27.05.2025, appointed District Collector, Mahoba for conducting preliminary inquiry regarding financial embezzlement against respondent no. 9 and the District Magistrate, Mahoba conducted preliminary inquiry and submitted report dated 18.06.2025, where again large scale financial embezzlement were found to be existing against respondent no. 9.

¶18

It is submitted that despite the report submitted by the District Magistrate, inquiry was not conducted by the State Government and therefore one Arun Kumar has approached this Court by filing Writ - C No. 8612 of 2025, which petition was disposed of by means of order dated 12.09.2025, directing the State Government to take into account the reply submitted by the Adhyaksha Zila Panchayat and also supplementary reply and further directions were passed that after evaluating such reply decision may be taken independently as to whether regular inquiry is to be initiated against respondent no. 9 and such exercise was to be conducted within eight weeks from the submission of supplementary reply.

¶19

It has been submitted that contempt petition was also filed before this Court which was dismissed by means of order dated 09.12.2025, finding that period prescribed in the previous order has not lapsed and accordingly contempt petition was dismissed.

¶20

WRIC No. 650 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

Present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner wherein grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite directions having been issued to the State Government, no decision has been taken on the preliminary inquiry report.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the present writ petition specially to the aspect on the locus of the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. It was vehemently contended that role of the complainant confines only to submission of the complaint and all subsequent actions are to be taken by the State Government and such complainant does not have any role in this regard. it was further submitted that the said inquiry proceedings are not in accordance with law and several other ground were taken while assailing the inquiry report against respondent no. 9.

¶24

At this stage learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that issue is before the competent authority and in all likelihood a decision shall be taken within next ten days regarding whether to institute regular inquiry against respondent no. 9.

¶25

Without going into the controversy pertaining to locus of the petitioner as well as validity of the inquiry report, We proceed to dispose of the present writ petition with direction to respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate orders within next two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority, in terms of previous directions of this Court.

¶26

Accordingly, with above directions present writ petition stands disposed of .

¶27

It is made clear that We have not entered into the merit of the controversy or decided the aspect of locus and present writ petition has been disposed of on the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶28

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.)

¶29

April 23, 2026

¶30

A. Verma

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sadashiv v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 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

Mohammad Sher Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin, Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Local Bodies Lko. and 5 Others

Saurabh Srivastava vs Yashi Saxena

M/S Virat Traders Thru. Proprietor Chhavi Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Urban Development Nagar Vikas Anubhag Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Yogesh Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, Dhq Po, New Delhi. and 3 Others vs 705276K Mwo Ram Karan Yadav