Back
2026 Supreme(All) 709
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARINDAM SINHA, SATYA VEER SINGH, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 4768 of 2026
Decided On : 21-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Bhim Sen Pandey, Kartikey Pandey
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh
Disciplinary punishment for administrative actions taken in good faith to address emergency exigencies is unsustainable where the primary charges remain unproven, the actions lack evidence of corruption, and the scrutiny adopts a pedantic approach that fails to account for the administrative necessity of the situation.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Service Jurisprudence - Disciplinary proceedings - Judicial review of punishment orders - Administrative actions taken during emergent situations - Where orders are issued to meet administrative exigencies during a pandemic, without evidence of corruption or adverse consequences, punishment based on a pedantic application of procedural rules is unsustainable. (Para 9)
(B) Disciplinary Inquiry - Findings - When the primary charge forming the basis of a disciplinary penalty is not proved, and the remaining charges reflect administrative decisions necessitated by emergency conditions, the court is entitled to interfere and quash the punishment order to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 3, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a punishment order and a subsequent tribunal judgment arising from disciplinary proceedings. Out of six charges, only two were found proved, while the primary charge involving the mass transfer of staff was specifically not proved during the inquiry. The petitioner argued that the impugned administrative actions were necessary to maintain functionality during a global pandemic. The tribunal confirmed the punishment, citing procedural lapses regarding approval of transfers, despite the absence of any allegation of corruption.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary authorities failed to account for the administrative necessity of the actions taken during a crisis. The reliance by the tribunal on the unauthorized nature of the mass transfer was inconsistent with the inquiry report, which found that specific charge unproved. The court determined that the actions were taken in good faith to meet operational requirements.
Issues: Whether a punishment order based on charges of procedural irregularity in administrative transfers is sustainable when the primary allegations were not proved and the actions were taken in good faith during an emergent health crisis.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary scrutiny must not be purely mechanical; where administrative decisions are necessitated by exigencies and lack any element of corruption or adverse impact, minor procedural deviations in obtaining formal approvals, often stemming from the pressures of an emergency situation, do not justify punitive measures, particularly when they are not supported by the findings of the inquiry itself.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned punishment order and tribunal judgment set aside and quashed; consequential benefits, including restoration of increments, directed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of disciplinary charges and challenge to administrative punishment orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. assessment of evidence and proportionality in disciplinary findings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial intervention in administrative actions taken during public emergencies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Sinha, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged punishment order dated 9th August, 2024 and order dated 10th February, 2026 passed by the Tribunal. Mr. B.S. Pandey, learned advocate appearing on his behalf submits, there were six charges brought against his client. Only charges 2 and 3 were found to be proved. Yet, punishment awarded by impugned order, confirmed by the Tribunal was on charge no.1. A further point is that the punishment order was not passed by the appointing authority. He had filed supplementary affidavit dated 5th April, 2026 on copy circulated to bring on record that his client has not received any increment after year 2022. He seeks interference.
2. Paragraph 3 from our earlier order dated 6th April, 2026 is reproduced below.
"3. Petitioner to provide us with English translation of the memorandum of charges, inquiry report, impugned punishment order and order dated 10th February, 2026 of the Tribunal. Respondents are free to also provide English translation of any document in Hindi, they would want to rely upon."
Mr. Pandey, hands up a brief containing the translations with copy to Dr. Tripathi, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned advocate holding the brief appears for respondent no. 5 (the Commission).
3. Charge no. 1 given in the charge-sheet disclosed by letter dated 11th July, 2023 of the Deputy Director, is reproduced below.
"Charge No. 1
That during your tenure in District Ghazipur, as per the Transfer Policy, 2021 issued by the Government regarding transfer of Government officers/employees, it has been provided that in accordance with the provisions prescribed under Government Order No. 3/2018/1/3/96/Ka-4- 2018 dated 29.03.2018, transfers could be effected up to 15 July, 2021, and thereafter, for transfer of Group 'C' and 'D' employees, prior approval of an authority one level higher than the prescribed level was mandatory. However, after the last date of the transfer session i.e., 15 July, 2021, you effected transfers of a total of 1027 sanitation workers posted in Gram Panchayats under the Panchayati Raj Department between July, 2021 and October, 2021 at your own level without obtaining approval from the higher authority. Further, as per the transfer policy, the number of transferred employees could not exceed 20% of the total strength, which was also violated by you. Additionally, out of the said transferred sanitation workers, transfer orders of 351 sanitation workers were cancelled by you without obtaining approval from the higher authority, whereas such cancellation should have been carried out only after obtaining approval from an authority one level higher. Thus, you are found guilty of acting in contravention of Government Orders.
The following evidence shall be relied upon in support of this charge:
1. Inquiry report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 26.04.2022."
We find from inquiry report dated 5th January, 2024, charge no. 1 was not proved against petitioner.
4. Charge no. 2 is reproduced below.
"Charge No. 2
That after the transfer session 2020-21 (last date 15.07.2021), you, on the dates 24.07.2021, 28.07.2021, 04.08.2021, 09.08.2021 and 12.08.2021, effected transfers of a total of 11 Gram Panchayat Officers, namely-Shri Kamalkant Singh, Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Shri Jitendra Kumar, Shri Avneesh Kumar, Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, Smt. Jyoti Singh, Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, Shri Suryaman Kumar Rai, Shri Shyamji Saini, Shri Sikandar Kumar Rajbhar and Shri Anil Kumar Dubey, to other development blocks at your own level without obtaining approval from the competent authority, which constitutes a serious irre
