Back
Sanjay Kumar Pathak Gets Relief: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Disciplinary Action Over
In a significant ruling reinforcing the need for in disciplinary proceedings, the has quashed the penalty of and withholding of one salary increment imposed on Sanjay Kumar Pathak, an Additional Commissioner in the . Justice Rajeev Singh held that disciplinary action cannot be sustained on the basis of unrecorded issued in video conferencing meetings, terming the charges as "hypothetical."
The Background
Sanjay Kumar Pathak was posted as Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (S.I.B.), State Tax, Kanpur Zone-First in . On , a was issued to him under . Two charges were leveled:
- Charge 1 : Alleged failure to ensure 100% scanning of e-way bills of vehicles transporting pan masala from manufacturing units in the Kanpur zone, as directed in review meetings held via video conferencing. This allegedly led to failure in achieving prescribed collection targets.
- Charge 2 : Alleged violation of , based on the first charge.
In his reply, Pathak relied on a circular dated issued by the , which prescribed a target of 245 e-way bill scans for mobile squad units. He demonstrated that in , the seven units under his supervision had scanned 474 vehicles—93.47% above the prescribed target. Pathak argued that no direction for 100% scanning existed prior to a subsequent circular dated .
Despite this, an inquiry found him guilty, and on
, the Special Secretary imposed the penalty of "
" and
"
."
Arguments Presented
Petitioner's Case : , assisted by , argued that the charge of failing to comply with oral instructions in video conferencing meetings was vague and unsupported by evidence. The dates and minutes of these alleged meetings were never provided to the petitioner. Pathak had already exceeded the prescribed scanning target under the existing circular. The relied on the November 21 circular, which post-dated the alleged directions. The impugned was passed without proper consideration of his detailed reply.
State's Response : State Counsel, represented by , contended that oral instructions had been issued on several occasions before , and Pathak failed to comply. However, when specifically asked by the court whether an oral circular could be issued by the , the state counsel was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. He also conceded that the dates of the video conferencing meetings were not mentioned either in the or in the impugned order.
Legal Analysis
The court scrutinized the entire disciplinary process. It observed that the circular dated , which was the governing instruction, set a target of 245 scans—a target that Pathak had exceeded. The alleged for 100% scanning were not backed by any written record.
Justice Rajeev Singh referred to the 's landmark judgment in , which holds that should not be issued in normal circumstances. Where an oral direction becomes unavoidable, it must be recorded and confirmed in writing at the earliest.
The court noted that the inquiry officer and the punishing authority had relied on circular dated , which merely mentioned that directions were given in earlier video conferencing meetings. However, no minutes of those meetings were supplied to the petitioner. The impugned order contained only general allegations without specifying dates.
"There is no evidence that prior to
, any direction was issued to the petitioner for ensuring 100% scanning of e-way bills of the vehicle transporting the pan masala,"
the court observed.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On the lack of specificity
:
"Even the dates are also not mentioned, in the impugned order only general allegations have been leveled."
-
On the basis of charges
:
"There is no evidence that prior to , any direction was issued to the petitioner for ensuring 100% scanning of e-way bills… Therefore, the impugned order is based on the ."
- On the need for : The court quoted the 's T.S.R. Subramanian case, emphasizing that should be avoided and, if unavoidable, must be documented promptly.
The Court's Decision
The was allowed. The court set aside:
- The dated
- The dated
- The dated
All consequential benefits, including restoration of the withheld increment and expunging of the penalty from service records, were directed to follow.
Importantly, the court issued a directive to the to ensure that in future, necessary instructions be issued in writing rather than orally. If oral instructions become unavoidable, they must be recorded at the earliest. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, the , and the .
This ruling serves as a strong reminder to disciplinary authorities that charges must be based on documented evidence, not on unverified , and that the and fair play require clarity and specificity in allegations.
