Allahabad High Court

Sunjeet Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural ... on 30 October, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:67700
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - A No. - 12655 of 2025   
 
   Sunjeet Pandey    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ganesh Nath Mishra, Samarth Gupta   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 18
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 .

Present petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-

"(i) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.4.2024, passed by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Shahjalalpur, Tehsil Biswan, District- Sitapur i.e. respondent No.5, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(ii) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue work as Gram Rojgar Sewak in concerned Gram Panchayat alongwith all consequential benefits."

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was sacked out from the service of the Gram Rojgar Sewak and being aggrieved, he instituted a writ petition being Writ-A No.1555 of 2024, wherein Judgment and order was passed on 6.3.2024, whereby the resolution dated 4.10.2023, by virtue of which service of the petitioner was dispensed with, was quashed and the department was directed to consider the matter of the petitioner afresh while considering his reply. The order dated 6.3.2024 reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 7 stands dispensed with.

On 28.02.2024, the following order had been passed:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6.

2. Petition has been filed challenging the resolution dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned whereby petitioner working on the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak has been removed from service.

3. It has been submitted that earlier a notice dated 03.10.2023 had been issued to petitioner by the Gram Panchayat indicating a meeting to be held on 09.10.2023 in which petitioner was required to be present in order to give a clarification regarding allegations levelled against her. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid notice, the Gram Panchayat meeting was actually held five days prior on 04.10.2023 itself whereby the impugned resolution has been passed. It is submitted that neither any fresh notice regarding preponement of meeting was never provided to petitioner nor was her reply considered.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 to 6 is granted a week's time to obtain instructions in this matter.

5. List this case on 06.03.2024, as fresh."

In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, learned counsel for opposite parties have been provided written instructions, a copy of which is taken on record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the meeting held on 04.10.2023 was in fact only an administrative meeting for consideration of the agenda in which an opportunity of hearing was not required to be provided to petitioner. It is further submitted that since the resolution dated 04.10.2023 was required to be affirmed/approved only in the next meeting on 09.10.2023, a notice had been issued to petitioner to lay forth his submissions regarding allegations levelled against him but despite such an opportunity having been granted, petitioner did not avail himself of the same. It is therefore submitted that there is no error in the resolution dated 04.10.2023.

Learned counsel for petitioner refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the resolution dated 04.10.2023 itself is indicative that a final decision has been taken and approval was merely a formality and therefore no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner.

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the resolution dated 04.10.2023, it is quite evident that various allegations have been levelled against petitioner with regard to his dis-satisfactory service and conduct. The resolution also indicates a decision having been taken by the Gram Panchayat for terminating contractual services of petitioner. The aforesaid resolution does not indicate any opportunity of hearing having been provided to petitioner.

It is also evident and on record that a notice dated 03.10.2023 i.e prior to the resolution dated 04.10.2023 was issued to petitioner requiring him to be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 09.10.2023 but prior thereto the impugned resolution dated 04.10.2023 has been passed.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once an opportunity had been provided to petitioner to the present in the meeting on 09.10.2023 to make his submissions, there was no occasion for the Gram Panchayat to have passed the resolution prior to that date on 04.10.2023 affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

In view of aforesaid, the resolution dated 04.10.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the opposite parties to consider the matter afresh and pass relevant orders but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply. For the aforesaid purpose, the opposite parties are directed to issue show cause notice to petitioner granting at least ten days' time for petitioner to file a reply thereto which shall be considered in the meeting to be held on 03.04.2024.

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. "

He further submits that after the aforesaid order was passed, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.3.2024 and he replied the same on 26.3.2024 but without considering the reply of the petitioner and without giving any reason, the order impugned dated 7.4.2024 has been passed while confirming the resolution already passed by the Gram Panchayat.

He further submitted that the order dated 7.4.2024 passed by the Secretary, Village Panchayat Shahjalalpur, Tehsil Biswan, District Sitapur is under the teeth of the order dated 6.3.2024 passed by this Court. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 7.4.2024 may be quashed and the respondent no.5 may be directed to consider the matter afresh.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 though has opposed the contention aforesaid but could not substantiate his argument that while passing the impugned order dated 7.4.2024 that the reply of the petitioner is considered or any reasoning has been given thereof.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions, this Court reaches to the conclusion that the order dated 7.4.2024 is not passed as per the direction given by this Court in Writ A No.1555 of 2024 and, therefore, the order dated 7.4.2024 is hereby quashed.

The respondent no.5 is directed to consider and decide the matter afresh considering the reply of the petitioner dated 26.3.2024 within a period of thirty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him and the petitioner is directed to co-operate in the proceedings.