The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), presided over by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, has set aside the suspension order of Executive Officer Neelav Shalya, ruling that departmental suspension cannot stand when initiated on a complaint unbacked by a mandatory affidavit, an unverified social media video, and vague allegations lacking specific charges of misconduct. The Court allowed the writ petition while directing that the departmental enquiry continue and be concluded expeditiously.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Neelav Shalya, was initially appointed as an Executive Officer at Nagar Panchayat, District Meerut, and was later posted to Nagar Panchayat, Hardoi, before receiving a promotion. On June 17, 2026, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings following allegations involving a video circulated on social media. The video allegedly showed the petitioner accepting illegal gratification in connection with a tender floated for the supply of straw and fodder. The petitioner submitted that the tender in question had actually been floated in 2024, well before he assumed charge as Executive Officer at Hardoi.
The complaint was registered on the Chief Minister’s Portal on April 6, 2026, by Respondent No. 4, Ajay Kumar. According to the petitioner, Ajay Kumar was a former clerk at Nagar Panchayat, Aligarh, whose services had been terminated by the petitioner acting in his official capacity as disciplinary authority after initiating proceedings regarding appointment on fake and forged mark-sheets.
Following the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), which noted that prima facie the petitioner appeared to be shown in the video and recommended that the contents be verified. Based on this report, directions were issued to initiate departmental proceedings, and a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on July 2, 2026, levelling the charge that he appeared to be depicted in the viral video.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Advocate Akber Ahmad, argued that Government Orders dated August 1, 1997, and January 29, 2024, explicitly mandate that any complaint against a government servant must be accompanied by an affidavit. No such affidavit was submitted by Respondent No. 4. Furthermore, counsel submitted that the charge sheet contained no specific allegation of accepting illegal gratification, rendering the charge vague.
The Standing Counsel submitted written instructions received from the District Magistrate and the Director, Local Bodies, which reiterated the sequence of events leading to the preliminary enquiry and suspension. However, the instructions remained silent on whether the mandatory affidavit was obtained from the complainant.
An impleadment application was also submitted by Nagar Palika Parishad. The Court observed that because the petitioner belongs to the Centralised Services, the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party, but nevertheless heard counsel to prevent unnecessary delay.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court observed that the statutory requirement under the relevant Government Orders to submit an affidavit alongside a complaint against a government servant was not fulfilled. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that both the SDM and District Magistrate reports emphasized that the veracity of the video should be independently evaluated, an exercise that was never carried out in accordance with the Rules.
Examining the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, the Court observed:
“Considering the charge sheet served upon the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner is not specifically charged of accepting any illegal gratification, prima facie, the reason for suspending the petitioner is absent, the same is also based upon a complaint which is not accompanied by an affidavit, as prescribed in the Government Orders. Thus, the suspension order passed against the petitioner is prima facie, contrary to the statutory guidelines and without there being any specific charges against the petitioner.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court set aside the suspension order dated June 17, 2026, and allowed the writ petition. The Court directed that the disciplinary proceedings shall proceed and be concluded expeditiously, subject to the petitioner’s cooperation.
The Court clarified that it remains open to the respondents to decide whether or not to assign work to the petitioner during this period, and specified that its observations would not influence the final outcome of the departmental proceedings on merits.
Case Title: Neelav Shalya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Urban Development And 3 Others
Case No.: WRIT A No. 6758 of 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia
Date: July 21, 2026
