Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2029
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Amar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11040 of 2020
Decided On : 21-08-2023
For the Petitioner: Man Mohan Singh, Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Ashish Kumar Srivastava and Ashok Khare.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Jitendra Nath Maurya, M.N. Singh and Nipun Singh.
Inadequate inquiry procedures and disproportionate sanctions highlight the need for strict adherence to rules ensuring fairness in disciplinary actions against government employees.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - The court examined procedural violations in the dismissal of an employee for forwarding a politically critical message on WhatsApp - The inquiry was found inadequately substantiated and contrary to stipulated procedure. The second inquiry by a Technical Committee was deemed unnecessary and violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 23, 40, 71)
(B) The court held that punishment must be proportionate and misconduct requires specific intent - The employee's inadvertent action and prompt apology indicate that dismissal was excessive and unjustifiable. (Paras 41, 74)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having mistakenly forwarded an objectionable message as WhatsApp administrator and successfully deleting it within minutes, faced termination based on an inquiry finding evidence insufficient to prove misconduct. The punishment was questioned for proportionality and adherence to procedural norms.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry conducted was flawed, lacked evidence of damage to government respect, and the punitive measure of dismissal was excessively harsh given the context of the infraction.
Issues: Whether the procedure adopted for the inquiry was proper and whether the punishment imposed was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The inquiry findings indicated no intent to damage the government’s image; thus, harsher punitive measures were unwarranted. The required rigor in establishing misconduct was not met.
Result: The dismissal was quashed, and the petitioner ordered reinstated with eligibility for minor punishment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination of employee due to whatsapp message. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on violation of natural justice. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court's analysis on procedural compliance. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 30 , 32) |
| 4. proportionality of punishment considered. (Para 40 , 41 , 43 , 45) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; reinstatement ordered. (Para 74 , 76) |
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.) :
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.D. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner, who was working as Additional Private Secretary in the State Secretariat of U.P. has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7th September, 2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 terminating him from service.
3. Briefly stated facts are that petitioner had a Whatsapp group with is Mobile No. 9454410505 as an administrator. He claimed to have received a message on 6th July, 2018 on aforesaid mobile that ''UGC ds fu;e ls vkschlh vkSj nfyrksa ds fy, njokts fcydqy cUn gks pqds gSaA jkejkT; esa CM Bkdqj vt; flag ;ksxh vkSj DyCM iafMr fnus'k 'kekZ us tkfrokn [kRe djrs gq, xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky; esa 71 esa 52 viuh tkfr dks lgk;d izksQslj cuk;kA^^
''As per the UGC Regulations the doors for OBC and Scheduled class are closed. In these days of Ramrajya CM Thakur Ajay Singh Yogi and Deputy CM Pandit Dinesh Sharma in order to remove casteism have appointed 52 candidates of their caste out of total 71 candidates on the post of Assistant Professor in Gorakhpur University.''
(English translation by the Court)
4. This message which was quite an objectionable remark for State Government, petitioner wanted to delete the same but due to inadvertent mistake he pressed the key 'forward' and thus got the message forwarded to the whatsapp group. He made a request to the members of the whatsapp group to delete the message. Interestingly, nobody made a complaint to the State Government but petitioner himself expressed regret vide his letter on 9th July, 2018 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. in following terms:
|
''To The Chief Secretary U.P. Government Sir, This is humbly submitted that on 06-07-2018 one objectionable message was received on my mobile No. 9454410505 which was related to the criticism of the Government. Considering this message to be objectionable, I had attempted to delete the aforesaid message, however, instead of being deleted, this message got circulated on whatsapp group due to accidental touch, for which a personal request was made by me to the concerned to delete the above-said message. The above act took place inadvertently by me for which I express heart-felt apology and assure that I shall remain alert in future in this regard. Dated : 09-07-2018 Sincerely Yours Sd/illegible (Amar Singh-II) Additional Private Secretary'' (English translation done by the Court) |
5. It is upon the aforesaid letter that State Government set up a departmental inquiry by issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 24th July, 2018 with two charges: (a) You have forwarded objectionable remarks made to the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on 6th July, 2018 upon your CUG Mobile No. 9454410505; and (b) The objectionable message, which was a serious remarks sent by you in the whatsapp group has lowered the prestige and respect of the State Government in public eyes and has also eroded its trust. Your above deed is against the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rule, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conduct Rules, 1956') and thus you are guilty of the same.
6. In support of the above two charges, the Government led four evidence out of which three were related to the provisions as contained under 3, 7 and 9 of the Conduct Rules, 1956 and t
