Rules Ignored: Santosh Kumar Reinstated, Chairman’s Orders Yet to Be Implemented

Chitrakoot / Banda Zone | December 30, 2025

The functioning of the Electricity Department in Chitrakoot district under the Banda Zone of Uttar Pradesh has once again come under scrutiny. Despite clear departmental rules, transfer policies, and high-level directives, a controversial employee has been reinstated and is reportedly being retained in the same old work area. This situation raises serious questions about administrative accountability and highlights how internal rules continue to be ignored.

Suspension Ends, Reinstatement Becomes Effective

According to departmental records and available documents, the suspension of Santosh Kumar (TG-2 / Draftsman) automatically became ineffective after the inquiry committee failed to submit its final report within the prescribed time limit. Under service rules, such a delay results in the employee being deemed reinstated.

However, the end of suspension and reinstatement does not imply that the employee can be reposted to the same sensitive and influential position held earlier.

Chairman’s 2025 Directive Remains in Force

In 2025, the Chairman of the Electricity Department issued a clear directive stating:

“Any employee who has been under suspension or departmental inquiry shall not be reposted to the same district, division, or previous work area after reinstatement.”

The objective of this order was to prevent local influence, long-standing networks, and the recurrence of irregular practices. As per service rules, this directive remains fully applicable and binding on all officers.

Questions Over Posting in the Same Area

Sources indicate that Santosh Kumar had been handling tube-well (PTW) power connections in Chitrakoot district for nearly two decades. He had earlier faced complaints and departmental action. Despite this history, discussions about retaining him in the same area after reinstatement have triggered serious concerns.

If, after reinstatement, he continues to be assigned:

• the same district
• the same nature of work
• the same influential position

it would amount to a direct violation of the Chairman’s orders.

Signs of Departmental Collusion

Information emerging from within the department suggests that the inquiry process was deliberately delayed and the final report was not submitted on time. This not only led to the automatic termination of the suspension but also allowed the employee to retain influence in the same area.

Sources further allege that certain local influential figures and departmental officials played a protective role, undermining the fairness of the disciplinary process.

Impact on Farmers and Rural Consumers

Farmers, women, and elderly residents from remote villages reportedly face prolonged delays while seeking tube-well connections and electricity-related services. Complaints suggest that files are held up without valid reasons, resulting in unnecessary hardship and adversely affecting agriculture and rural livelihoods.

What Do the Rules Require?

As per service rules and administrative procedures:

• Once a suspension ends, the employee must be reinstated into service
• However, reinstatement must be accompanied by:
  • posting in a different district or division, and
  • assignment to a non-sensitive position

This process is considered essential for transparency, impartiality, and compliance with departmental directives.

Department Under Watch

The key question now is whether the Electricity Department will:

• comply with the Chairman’s directives, or
• allow reinstatement to be used as a cover to maintain protection and influence in the old work area.

Failure to act in accordance with the rules could escalate the matter to higher administrative and governance levels.

Conclusion

As of December 30, 2025, while Santosh Kumar’s suspension has legally ended and reinstatement has taken effect, retaining him in the same location is neither justified under service rules nor administratively appropriate.

This case once again raises a critical question: Are departmental directives merely confined to paper, or is there genuine intent to enforce them on the ground?