Vinay Kant Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13993 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶3Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 14.11.2025 whereby petitioner currently on the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary has been placed under suspension.

¶4It has been submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that primary allegations have been levelled against the Mate who was required to upload photographs pertaining to work being conducted. He has also adverted to fact that upon coming to know of the incorrect uploading of such photographs, petitioner himself issued a notice on 06.11.2025 to the said Mate indicating incorrect uploading of photographs. It is thus submitted that it is in fact petitioner who was responsible for indicating error in 'View Daily Attendance' whereas inspection which forms the basis of petitioner's suspension took place subsequently on 07.11.2025. It is also submitted that since the work was required to be performed from

01.11.2025 till 14.11.2025, it is only upon completion of aforesaid work that petitioner was required to authenticate attendance of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sachin Kumar Pandey, Mirza Ataulla Beg Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vinay Kant Gautam .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) workers.

¶5Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that as per Government Order dated 30.07.2025, it is in fact the responsibility of petitioner as Secretary of Gram Panchayat to authenticate the uploaded attendance on the same day itself. It is submitted that petitioner therefore has been unable to explain as to why notice was issued after six days of work having commenced.

¶6Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the entire dispute revolves around the aspect whether petitioner was required to authenticate the uploaded 'View Daily Attendance' daily or upon completion of the work after 14 days and whether due to some extra ordinary circumstance, was unable to authenticate the same.

¶7In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid aspect would require delving into disputed questions of facts, which would not be appropriate for a writ Court to adjudicate upon at the stage of examination of validity of the suspension order.

¶8Since charge sheet has already been issued to petitioner, it shall be open for petitioner to reply the same within the time-frame granted.

¶9Opposite parties are required to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously.

¶10With aforesaid direction(s), the petition stands finally disposed of . December 16, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13993 of 2025 (Manish Mathur,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench