Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court upheld the suspension order, finding the petitioner failed to take proper precautions and therefore remains liable.
Summary
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer with the Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur, was suspended by an order dated 25‑03‑2026 following the unauthorized removal and damage of four martyrs' statues by a construction agency. The petitioner claimed he was on station leave during the incident and that the agency alone was responsible, citing a short inquiry report. The respondent argued that, as the supervising engineer, the petitioner had a duty to ensure safeguards for the statues and could not evade responsibility. The court noted that, irrespective of the petitioner's leave, he failed to take preventive measures and that the FIR against the agency did not absolve him of his duties. Consequently, the court found sufficient material to uphold the suspension and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be held liable for the removal and damage of statues despite being on station leave.
- Whether the suspension order is justified given the alleged fault of the construction agency.
- Whether the filing of an FIR against the construction agency absolves the petitioner of his supervisory duties.
Subjects
- suspension
- disciplinary proceeding
- municipal engineer
- statues
- construction agency
- leave
- negligence
- public property
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5245 of 2026
Pramod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.B. Singh Parmar
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey
Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Singh Parmar, learned
counsel for Respondent-3.
2. Petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in Nagar Nigam, Shahjahanpur
and presently he is under suspension by way of impugned order dated
25.03.2026 and a disciplinary proceeding is also contemplated.
3. It is alleged that on 24.03.2026 for the purpose of beautification /
development of Town Hall Campus of Nagar Nigam, the concerned agency,
namely, M/s Fly Infratech, Lucknow, has removed four statues of martyrs
situated at the campus in a very objectionable way, which has caused
damage to statues also and petitioner being Junior Engineer has not taken
due care for execution of said work.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that statues
were removed by construction agency without informing concerned
authorities in the night of 22/23.03.2026 and for that he refers a short inquiry
report dated 24.03.2026, therefore, the entire fault was of construction
agency and not of any officer including petitioner.
WRIA No. 5245 of 2026
2
5. Learned Senior Advocate also submits that petitioner was on station leave
from 21.03.2026 to 22.03.2026 and he has already applied for permission to
leave the Headquaters, which was granted also. Therefore, petitioner cannot
be held guilty even prima facie for removal of statues.
6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that now the statues have
already been established at proper place with proper respect and damage, if
any, is also repaired.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-3 submits that
petitioner being a Junior Engineer was responsible to look after construction
work especially when statues were removed or displaced. He cannot put
entire responsibility on construction agency. The work was done under
supervision of petitioner and others.
8. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record.
9. A fact which is not under much dispute is that in the night of
22/23.03.2026 four statues of martyrs were removed by construction agency
without permission, which got damaged and it was serious taken note by
public at large also though later on it appears that statues were properly
established at appropriate place.
10. The Court also takes note that it may be a case that petitioner was on
station leave or he was not present when statues were removed as well as it
may be a case that construction agency has not informed authorities
including petitioner and others but it has not been much denied that
petitioner was looking after construction work and that he had no knowledge
that for the purpose of development work statues have to be removed.
Therefore, petitioner has not taken proper safeguards in advance to protect
the statues. He cannot run away from responsibility that he was on station
leave on 22.03.2026.
WRIA No. 5245 of 2026
3
11. The Court finds that there are sufficient material and reasons to put
petitioner under suspension since he has failed to take proper precaution in
advance for removal of statues for the purpose of development work.
12. The Court also takes note that though a First Information Report has
been lodged against construction agency, however, it will not absolve
petitioner from his duties. At this stage, it is also not on record, whether
permission to leave station was granted even post facto.
13. In aforesaid circumstances, on basis of material available, I do not find
any reason to interfere with impugned suspension order and this writ petition
is disposed of that charge sheet, if not already submitted, be submitted
expeditiously.
April 15, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…