Allahabad High Court
Anoop Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:194197
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15422 of 2025
Anoop Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Manvendra Pratap Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Manvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Himkanya Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
2. This court entertained this petition on 14.10.2025 while directing the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and thereafter the matter was fixed for today. Instructions have been supplied by Ms. Himkanya Srivastava, learned learned Standing Counsel, submits that she is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and she does not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal on 06.06.2016 and was posted at Tehsil Bindki, District Fatehpur and thereafter he was shunted in the month of February, 2022 in Tehsil Sadar, District Fatehpur. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Gata No. 52 is recorded in revenue records as Rasta whereas Gata no. 36 as Mukhya Marg which is a public property. The proceedings came to be initiated under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 with respect to Gata No. 36 admeasuring 0.0400 hectares (Mukhya Marg) and the dispossession was made with respect to the Gata No. 52 admeasuring 0.480 hectares (Rasta). A suspension order came to be passed on 24.07.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Fatehpur, suspending the writ petitioner with respect to the allegation that the writ petitioner submitted an incorrect report pursuant whereto the demolition exercise stood undertaken with respect to Gata No. 52.
4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.
5. This Court entertained the writ petition on 14.10.2025 while passing the following orders:
"1. Contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the impugned suspension order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the writ petitioner while acting in the official capacity as a Lekhpal had tendered a report, pursuant whereto, proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, came to be preferred and demolition exercise was undertaken, which was not carried to an appeal under Section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code.
2. Submission is that any act committed by the writ petitioner in official capacity cannot be termed to be a misconduct so as to place him under suspension. He seeks to rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409.
3. Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions.
4. Put up this case on 28.10.2025, as fresh."
6. Post passing of the order, today instructions have been forwarded which is taken on record and marked as Appendix A.
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the suspension order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that each and every act of negligence does not partake the character of a misconduct as what is to be seen in the fact and circumstances of the case is that the writ petitioner according to his own wisdom had conducted the survey and submitted a report in the official capacity of a Lekhpal might be that the said report was not correct. However, pursuant to the order passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, by the Tahasildar, Sadar, District Fatehpur, demolition exercise stood undertaken with respect to Gata No. 36 in that regard. He submits that the said orders had not been subject matter of challenge by any of the affected parties. According to him, there might be a negligence, but the same said negligence cannot attribute to a misconduct so as to impose any major punishment in view of the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Argument is that the orders passed under Section 67 of the Code have not been subject matter of challenge and they are still in existence in that regard. Further submission is that in exercise of the power so conferred upon him, the writ petitioner as per his own wisdom had submitted the report but the said report stood acted upon and demolition exercise stood done with respect to two Gatas being 52 and 56, which are government lands. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. U.O.I. and others; AIR 1999 SC 2881 followed by in Civil Appeal Number 10590 of 2024 (Amresh Shirvastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others), decided on 01.04.2025. Learned counsel for the submitted that the writ petitioner is not shy to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. However, suspension is unjustified and unwarranted.
8. Ms. Himkanya Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner ought to have submitted a correct report and on the basis of the said report, demolition exercise stood undertaken. Though, according to her, the Gata No. 36 is recorded as 'Mukhya Marg' and Gata No. 52 as 'Rasta'. She also admits the fact that the said order passed under Section 67 of the Code had attained finality. According to the instructions possessed by her from petitioner, the suspension order may be set aside, but the inquiry will go on.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Notably, the condition of the services stands covered under the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The appointing authority is vested with the power to suspend an employee or an officer when there is any misconduct or allegation relating to the same. However, the Court, in normal course, does not interfere with the suspension order until and unless the facts themselves demonstrate that there is no justification to suspend the delinquent.
11. Here, in the present case, it has come on record that the writ petitioner, while acting as Lekhpal, tendered the report. However, the said report has been alleged to be incorrect, pursuant to which the said proceedings stood triggered with respect to Section 67 of the Code, with regard to the Gata No. 36 but the demolition exercise stood taken under Gata No. 52.
12. Apparently, at this stage, this Court is not required to delve into the merits of the matter. However, suffice is to say that it is the case of the petitioner that the Gata Nos. 36 and 56, both are public lands and there were encroachments, and pursuant thereto, encroachment was removed. The order passed under Section 67 of the Code had attained finality and the same has not been challenged by any affected person.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:
(a). The impugned suspension order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Fatehpur is set aside.
(b) The passing of the order would not preclude the respondents from conducting the inquiry and concluding the same within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order..
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 4, 2025
A. Prajapati
