AMRENDRA KANT PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                             WRIT - A No. - 2572 of 2026

Amrendra Kant Pandey
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Nitish Shakya, Saurabh Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
                       HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jitendra Prasad,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.


2. This Court had entertained the writ petition on 20.02.2026 and sought
instructions from the learned Standing Counsel. Pursuant thereto, Sri
Jitendra Prasad had produced instructions under the signature of the Joint
Secretary, U.P., which were taken on record and marked as Appendix–A, as
noted in the order dated 13.03.2026. Subsequently, further instructions have
been filed, which are taken on record as Appendix–B.


3. A statement has been made by the learned Standing Counsel that he has
complete instructions in the matter and the writ petition may be heard and
decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally
decided at this stage.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Junior
Engineer and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
and thereafter to the post of Executive Engineer. At present, he is working as
Executive Engineer. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted
as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mirzapur. The petitioner
has been placed under suspension under the provisions of the U.P.
Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

5. Challenging the said suspension order dated 10.2.2026, the present writ
petition has been filed.
                                                          WRIA No. 2572 of 2026
                                 2



6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
suspension order is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable, as no prima facie
case of misconduct is made out against the petitioner.


7. It is contended that the petitioner in discharge of his official duties, had
floated tenders for certain repair works vide tender notice dated 06.02.2025,
consisting of six items. It is submitted that since the value of each tender was
below Rs. 10 lakhs in view of Government Circulars dated 24.04.2018 and
26.07.2018, the tenders were rightly invited through offline mode. It is
further contended that as per Circular dated 08.06.2017, certain categories of
work, including hot-mix plant works, patch repair, etc., are permitted to be
executed through offline tenders, and therefore, there was no illegality in
adopting the offline mode.


8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in response to the tender notice, bids
were received and prior to opening of the bids, the petitioner, in his capacity
as Executive Engineer requested the District Magistrate, Mirzapur to
nominate a representative. Accordingly, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(Finance), Chunar, Mirzapur was deputed as the nominee of the District
Magistrate.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the bids were opened in front
of nominee of District Magistrate Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Sri Janardan Yadav,
Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department,
Mirzapur and petitioner and since the first bid was below 1.45% of the total
cost of Rs. 847110.00 the same was accepted. Likewise, second bid of below
1.30% of total cost of Rs. 833095.00 was accepted. Third bid of below
1.30% of total cost of Rs. 811988 was accepted. Fourth bid which was
1.45% below of the total cost of Rs. 846120.00 was accepted. Fifth bid
which was 1.45% below of the total cost of Rs. 832050.00 was accepted
which was duly signed and endorsed by the petitioner, Sri Janardan Yadav,
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department and Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (Finance), Tehsil-Chunar, District Mirzapur (nominee of the
District Magistrate).

10. According to the petitioner, a social worker, namely, Praveen Kumar
Singh, lodged a complaint on the IGRS portal on 11.11.2025 in relation to
the tenders issued and finalized by the petitioner along with other members.
                                                          WRIA No. 2572 of 2026
                                3


Taking note of the said complaint, the Superintendent Engineer sought an
explanation from the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2025.

11. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to an inquiry report submitted
by the competent authority on the complaint dated 12.06.2025, wherein it
has been found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are without
substance and no irregularity was established. It is, thus, submitted that the
suspension order is arbitrary, based on unfounded allegations and liable to be
set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the works in question
were essentially for repair and such repairs may include ancillary
construction and maintenance activities. It is contended that after
considering feasibility and technical requirements, tenders were invited.
Since the value of each work was below Rs. 10 lakhs and in view of Clause
20 of the Government Order dated 08.06.2017, it was within the discretion
of the petitioner, in his capacity as Executive Engineer to invite tenders
through offline mode. It is, thus, argued that no illegality has been
committed and the suspension order deserves to be set aside.


13. Per contra, Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of
instructions submits that as per decisions taken at the State level, there were
as many as 27 works which were to be executed under different heads and
the cumulative value exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, in terms of
Government Circulars dated 24.04.2018 and 26.07.2018, the tenders ought
to have been invited through online mode. It is further submitted that as per
the circular dated 08.06.2017, particularly Clause 9 thereof it has been
specifically provided that tenders exceeding the prescribed limit are to be
invited through the online process.


14. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner in
order to confer undue benefit, deliberately bifurcated and trifurcated the
works so as to bring their value below Rs. 10 lakhs thereby avoiding the
mandatory requirement of e-tendering. It is further contended that mere
presence of officials including the nominee of the District Magistrate would
not cure the inherent irregularity in the tender process.


15. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
                                                          WRIA No. 2572 of 2026
                                 4



16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer
in the Public Works Department and his services are governed by the
provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the suspension order has
been passed by an incompetent authority.


17. The primary contention of the petitioner is that in view of Clause 20 of
the Government Order dated 08.06.2017, the tenders were rightly invited
through offline mode, considering the nature of the work. Though the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a fact-finding inquiry report and the
respondents have also relied upon another report dated 1.12.2025/20.1.2026
of this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is not required at this stage to adjudicate upon the correctness or
reliability of such reports. This Court is also not required to record any
finding, even prima facie, as to whether the petitioner was justified in
segregating or bifurcating the tenders. The allegation of the State is that such
bifurcation was done deliberately to reduce the value of the tenders below
Rs. 10 lakhs so as to avoid the requirement of online tenderings, such issues
are essentially matters of factual determination which are to be examined in
departmental proceedings.


18. It is further noted that a charge-sheet dated 06.03.2026 has already been
issued to the petitioner which has been brought on record as Appendix-A.
Once disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, this Court finds that it
would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage. It is always open to the
petitioner to submit his reply to the charge-sheet and to establish his defence
in the departmental inquiry.


19. So far as the submission that no loss has been caused to the State is
concerned, the same also involves issues, which are to be examined during
the course of inquiry.


20. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the impugned suspension
order.

21. However, it is provided that the petitioner shall participate in the
departmental inquiry and the Disciplinary Authority shall make an
                                                                                              WRIA No. 2572 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of
                                    three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order,
                                    subject to cooperation of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to
                                    subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules, subject to fulfillment of
                                    all statutory requirements.

                                    22. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.


                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Sushma
                                                                                               (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHAMA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad