# Amita Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 567
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-23
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 21949 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amita-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51104
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to
the Impugned orders to the effect that
despite culmination of inquiries, one after
another, in favour of the petitioner, the
respondent-officers are bent upon to hold
de novo inquiry - Non-compliance with
Court Orders - Respondent No. 5 failed to
comply with the Court's directive to file a
personal affidavit, leading to his personal
appearance - Violation of Interim Stay -
Abuse of Process - Despite the Court's
interim stay order dated 08.08.2024, a
fresh inquiry was initiated - Respondent No.
5 submitted a personal affidavit - misuse of
authority - abuse of Process and Influence
- Court finds that - respondent No. 5 has
acted above the law, disregarded judicial
orders, and engaged in malpractice and has
attempted to shield his actions by shifting
blame on to the Chief Standing Counsel,
making it clear that adverse inference must
be drawn - Disciplinary Action ordered -
held,
malpractices
and
reprehensible
conduct cannot be tolerated and respondent
No. 5 accountable for violating judicial
orders and engaging in malpractice - thus,
the St. Government is directed to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the officer
and to make interim arrangements for the
functioning of his post - further, present
matter is directed to be list among the top
ten cases - Standing counsel shall place the
action taken by the St. Govt. - the Registrar
(Compliance), High Court, Allahabad, is
directed to send a copy of the order to the
Chief Secretary, U.P., for immediate action -
writ petition pending. (Para - 10, 11, 12,
14, 15)

Writ Petition pending. (E-11)

## Text

11 All. Amita Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
petitioner would be subject to the
succession laws and the heirs of the
deceased would have a right to the said
amount in accordance with law.

12. Counsel on behalf of petitioner
has given an undertaking before this Court
that he shall hold the money in trust and
shall be liable to make payment to the legal
heirs if and when decided by the courts of
law in accordance with law. In light of the
same, the Bank of Baroda is directed to
release the amounts lying in FDRs in
favour of petitioner within a period of three
weeks from date. The petitioner is directed
to file an affidavit before Bank of Baroda
that money being received by him is being
held by him in trust and undertakes to make
payment of the same to the legal heirs as
and when decided.

13. With the above direction the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ -C No. 21949 of 2024

Amita Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Somesh Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajal Krishna, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to
the Impugned orders to the effect that
despite culmination of inquiries, one after
another, in favour of the petitioner, the
respondent-officers are bent upon to hold
de novo inquiry - Non-compliance with
Court Orders - Respondent No. 5 failed to
comply with the Court's directive to file a
personal affidavit, leading to his personal
appearance - Violation of Interim Stay -
Abuse of Process - Despite the Court's
interim stay order dated 08.08.2024, a
fresh inquiry was initiated - Respondent No.
5 submitted a personal affidavit - misuse of
authority - abuse of Process and Influence
- Court finds that - respondent No. 5 has
acted above the law, disregarded judicial
orders, and engaged in malpractice and has
attempted to shield his actions by shifting
blame on to the Chief Standing Counsel,
making it clear that adverse inference must
be drawn - Disciplinary Action ordered -
held,
malpractices
and
reprehensible
conduct cannot be tolerated and respondent
No. 5 accountable for violating judicial
orders and engaging in malpractice - thus,
the St. Government is directed to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the officer
and to make interim arrangements for the
functioning of his post - further, present
matter is directed to be list among the top
ten cases - Standing counsel shall place the
action taken by the St. Govt. - the Registrar
(Compliance), High Court, Allahabad, is
directed to send a copy of the order to the
Chief Secretary, U.P., for immediate action -
writ petition pending. (Para - 10, 11, 12,
14, 15)

Writ Petition pending. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
& Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Earlier, when the order dated
11.11.2024 directing the respondent No.5 to
file his personal affidavit was not complied
with, this Court, by order dated 21.11.2024,
directed personal appearance of the officer
concerned
explaining
the
reason
of
initiation of another inquiry despite stay of
third de novo investigation.
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Today, personal affidavit of Shri
N.B. Savita, presently posted as Joint
Development
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Division, Kanpur has been filed in Court
which is taken on record. The said officer is
also personally present before us.

3. The grievance raised by means
of this writ petition is to the effect that
despite culmination of inquiries, one after
another, in favour of the petitioner, the
respondent-officers are bent upon to hold
de novo inquiry which is an abuse of the
process of law. Considering the material on
record and the arguments advanced, this
Court
passed
following
order
on
08.08.2024:-

"Learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
petitioner seeks and is granted
permission to carry out necessary
corrections in the writ petition
including the prayer clause.
Issue notice to respondent
Nos.6 and 7.
Steps be taken within a
week.
List
this
matter
on
September 2, 2024 as fresh, by
which
date
learned
Standing
Counsel may get instructions in the
matter.
In the meantime, Joint
Development
Commissioner,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur is directed
to stay his hands with regard to
third de novo investigation. "

4. On 11.11.2024, the Court was
informed about initiation of another inquiry
in violation of interim order passed on
08.08.2024. Consequently, the respondent
No.5 i.e. Joint Development Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur, was directed to
file his personal affidavit. In the personal
affidavit,
a
stand
has
been
taken
substantially to the effect that the inquiries
conducted earlier were initiated on the
complaint of one Dalveer Singh which
were distinct in nature and unrelated to the
instant writ petition whereas the action
taken now is pursuant to two fresh
independent complaints submitted by Smt.
Anupam Pal and Dalveer Singh. The Court
may note that, in sum and substance, the
allegations levelled against the petitioner
are
in
respect
of
alleged
financial
irregularities committed qua construction/
development of some cattle shelter shed
and the inquiries held earlier were also in
respect of same allegations but had ended
in favour of the petitioner having found no
irregularities on her part.

5. As far as reason behind going
ahead with the fresh inquiry despite interim
order dated 08.08.2024 operating in the
instant writ petition, a copy of the letter
dated 13.09.2024 annexed as 'Annexure
No.SA-3' to the supplementary affidavit
was referred to during the course of
arguments. The letter reads as under:-

"प्रेषक,
संयुक्त धिकास आयुक्त,
कानपुर मडडल, कानपुर।
सेवा में,
अिीक्षर् अधभयन्ता,
ग्रामीण अकभयन्त्रण कवभाग
कानपुर मडडल कानपुर।
संख्या - एस०टी०/ जांच ग्रा० प० -
चपुन्ना / मनरेगा / 2024 - 25 किनांक
13.09.2024

कवषय- जनपि कन्नौज के कवकास खडड
हसेरन की ग्राम पंचायत चपुन्ना में कैटल शेड / पशु
आश्रय स्थल का कनमायण कायय कराये कबना अकनयकमत
11 All. Amita Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
तरीके से मनरेगा मि की धनराकश का िुरूपयोग ककये
जाने की कशकायत की जांच कराए जाने के संबंध में।
महोिय,
कृपया, उपयुयक्त श्री िलवीर कसंह पुत्र श्री
प्रकाश चन्र कनवासी ग्राम व पोस्ट चपुन्ना कवकास खडड
हसेरन थाना सौररख के रकजस्टडय प्राथयना पत्र संख्या -
EU226966167IN किनांक 03.09.2024
(संलग्ऩ) का सन्िभय ग्रहण करने का कि करें कजसके
माध्यम से कशकायतकताय द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी के प्रेकषत
पत्र संख्या - 451/ एस०टी०/ जॉच ग्रां० पं० -
चपुन्ना / मनरेगा /2024 - 25 किनांक
23.08.2024 द्वारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय,
इलाहाबाि में योकजत संख्या - 21949 / 2024
अकमता उफय नेहा कत्रपाठी बनाम प्रमुख सकचव, ग्राम्य
कवकास, उ०प्र० लखनऊ आकि 06 पाररत आिेश
किनांक 08 - 08 - 2024 के अनुपालन में
याकचका का कनस्तारण न होने तक अकग्रम काययवाही न
ककये जाने किए गए कनिेश के िम अवगत कराया गया
है कक मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाि में योकजत ररट
संख्या - 21940 / 2024 से मामला इतर होने के
कारण जांच ककए जाने की मांग की गयी है।
प्रकरण में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाि
में योकजत याकचका संख्या - सी०एम०डब्लू० पी०
(सी० - 21949/2024 ) अकमता कत्रपाठी / नेहा
कत्रपाठी बनाम उ० प्र० राज्य व अन्य में मुख्य स्र्ायी
अधििक्ता के पत्र धदिांक 29- 8-2024 (संलग्ऩ)
से स्पष्ट िोता िै धक आई०जी०आर० एस० सन्दभण
संख्या - 80016024000589 में िी जॉच ि
कराये जािे के धिदेश धदये गए िैं।
अतिः श्रीमती अनुपम पाल पत्नी श्री
उियपाल कसंह कनवासी ग्राम व पोस्ट चपुन्ना कवकास
खडड हसेरन जनपि कन्नौज एवं श्री िलवीर कसंह पुत्र
श्री प्रकाशचन्र पाल कनवासी ग्राम व पोस्ट चपुन्ना
तहसील कतवाय जनपि कन्नौज के कायायलय पत्र संख्या
424 / कशकायती पत्र किनांक 09-08-2024
(संलग्ऩ) द्वारा प्रेकषत कशकायती प्राथयना पत्रों में उठाये
गये कबन्िुओ पर गुण िोष के आधार पर जॉंच कर
जॉच आख्या यशाशीघ्र उपलब्ि करािे का कष्ट
करें।

संलग्ऩक - उपरोक्तािुसार। भिदीय
(एन०बी०सकवता)
संयुक्त कवकास आयुक्त
कानपुर मडडल कानपुर।
संख्या एिं धदिांक उपरोक्तािुसार।
प्रकतकलकप - कशकायतकताय (1) श्रीमती
अनुपम पाल पत्नी श्री उियपाल कसंह कनवासी ग्राम व
पोस्ट चपुन्ना कवकास खडड हसेरन जनपि कन्नौज। (2)
श्री िलवीर कसंह पुत्र श्री प्रकाशचन्र पाल कनवासी ग्राम
व पोस्ट चपुन्ना तहसील, कतवाय जनपि कन्नौज। (3)
श्री अकमता उफय नेहा कत्रपाठी ग्राम व पोस्ट चपुन्ना
कवकास खडड हसेरन जनपि कन्नौज का सुचनाथय।
संयुक्त कवकास आयुक्त,
कानपुर मडडल, कानपुर। "

6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
letter would show that despite having full
knowledge of the interim order dated
08.08.2024, Shri N.B. Savita, the officer
who is present in Court, directed the
Superintending
Engineer
(Rural),
Engineering Department, Kanpur Division,
Kanpur to hold another inquiry by
interpreting the communication made by
Chief Standing Counsel of this Court vide
his letter dated 29.08.2024 that directions
have been issued not to conduct inquiry in
relation
to
IGRS
reference
No.80016024000589 only. Though the
letter of Chief Standing Counsel dated
29.08.2024 was shown to be annexed to the
officer's letter dated 13.09.2024, its copy
has not been placed before this Court nor
has been annexed to the officer's personal
affidavit filed by the officer today. Under
such circumstances, the Court has all
reason to believe that the officer is trying to
shield his action of violating the interim
order passed by this Court by taking aid of
letter written by Chief Standing Counsel
without bringing the same on record. This
is a clear case where adverse inference
must be drawn against the officer for not
placing the relevant document before the
Court.
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Apart from the above, the stand
taken in the personal affidavit as regards
the distinct nature of complaints, the Court
may notice that action impugned in the
present writ petition is in pursuance of
complaint moved by Smt. Anupam Pal
(respondent No.6), wife of Uday Pal Singh
(respondent No.7). The respondent No.7 is
admittedly posted as Sub Inspector, Jalaun
which is apparent from an endorsement
made at the top of the complaint moved by
respondent No.6 before the Commissioner.
The endorsement reads as under:-

"CDO
Mr. Uday Pal Singh , who
is a Sub Inspector posted in Jalaun
raised very serious allegation. So
pls send ADO on sight to verify if
the complaint is right or wrong." (It
appears that the word "sight" is
wrongly mentioned. The correct
word is "site").

8. The statement contained in the
personal affidavit filed today to the effect
that earlier action was taken pursuant to a
complaint moved by Dalveer Singh, not
party to the writ petition and further, the
same
was
in
relation
to
some
irregularities committed by the petitioner
in the year 2019-2020, having no concern
with the allegations levelled now. This
Court has perused the 'Annexure No.3',
annexed to the personal affidavit which
refers to not only financial year 20192020 but also financial year 2020-2021,
inquiries
initiated
and
culminated
thereafter including the inquiry report
dated 08.03.2024. This Court has also
examined the fact that respondent No.6,
i.e. the complainant, is none other than
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of Dalveer Singh
as is mentioned in the complaint filed by
Dalveer Singh himself.
9. In view of the above, it is
apparently clear that Shri N.B. Savita,
presently posted as Joint Development
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur is
treating himself to be not only above the
law but also as an appellate authority sitting
over the stay order passed by this Court. He
has not only clearly violated the interim
order dated 08.08.2024 but, even thereafter,
did not file his personal affidavit pursuant
to order dated 11.11.2024 and has appeared
today only when the Court directed his
personal appearance. The audacity of the
officer goes to the extent that in order to
shield his action of going ahead despite an
interim order being operative, he has
attempted to put the blame squarely upon
the Chief Standing Counsel of this Court
who takes care of the interest of the State
and its machinery in all proceedings before
this Court. The attempt is to somehow
impress this Court as if it was the Chief
Standing Counsel who directly/ indirectly/
expressly/ impliedly directed the officer to
go ahead with the inquiry though the facts
are absolutely contrary to the same.

10. Though 'Annexure No.7' to the
personal affidavit is a copy of letter dated
21.11.2024 written by Shri N.B. Savita to
the Superintending Engineer cancelling the
earlier
letter
dated
13.09.2024
with
immediate effect with a further direction
that no inquiry be conducted, this Court is
of the view that it is merely an eye-wash
and a device to show that this Court's order
has now been complied with. However, it is
patently clear that this has been done by the
officer
because
of
the
order
dated
21.11.2024
directing
his
personal
appearance.

11. The overall conduct of the
officer leaves no room for doubt that he has
abused his position and was dancing to the
11 All. Ashish Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
tune played by the respondent
No.7, a Sub-Inspector and treating himself
to be above the law with a further attempt
to bring the Chief Standing Counsel into
hot
waters.
Such
malpractices
and
reprehensible conduct cannot be tolerated
by this Court.

12. In view of the above, this
Court deems it appropriate to direct
the State Government to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against Shri
N.B. Savita, presently posted as Joint
Development Commissioner, Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur.
The
State
Government shall be at liberty to
make interim arrangements for the
functional
discharge
of
duties
concerning
the
post
of
Joint
Development Commissioner, Kanpur
Division, Kanpur.

13. List this petition in top ten
cases before appropriate Bench on
16.01.2025.

14. On the next date fixed, the
learned Standing Counsel shall place before
this Court the action taken by the State
Government pursuant to and in furtherance
of this order.

15. Registrar (Compliance), High
Court, Allahabad is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Chief Secretary (U.P.
Government, Lucknow) for immediate
action in compliance of this order.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 571
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Writ -A No. 5709 of 2019

Ashish Kumar Rajbhar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay
Goswami,
Shreyas
Srivastava,
Sudhanshu Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chandan Kumar, Swapnil Kumar

A.
Service
Law
-
Non-disclosure
of
criminal case - Appointment/Recruitment
- Suppression of "material" information
presupposes that what is suppressed that
"matters" not every technical or trivial
matter. The employer has to act on due
consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in
exercise
of
powers
in
order
to
cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of
employee.
Though
a
person
who
has
suppressed the material information cannot
claim unfettered right for appointment or
continuity in service but he has a right not to be
dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has
to be in reasonable manner with objectivity
having due regard to facts of cases. (Para 8)

B. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as
a disqualification, would be unjust and the
same
would
tantamount
to
being
completely
oblivious
to
the
ground
realities. (Para 9)

Nature of the criminal case; the overall
consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the
nature
of
the
query
in
the
application/verification form; the contents of the
character
verification
reports;
the
socio
economic strata of the individual applying; the
other antecedents of the candidate; the nature
of consideration and the contents of the
cancellation/termination order' were some of the
crucial aspects which should enter the judicial
verdict in adjudging the suitability and in
determining the nature of relief to be ordered.
(Para 9)

Broad- brushing every non-disclosure as a
disqualification would be unjust and it would be
arbitrary and unreasonable to disqualify a