# Akansh Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 65
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7181 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akansh-choudhary-v-union-of-india-ors-53625
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Whether interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is warranted in disciplinary
proceedings where the inquiry was conducted in
accordance with law and there is some legal
evidence to support the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry -
Allegation
of
submission
of
fake
experience certificate - Removal from
service - Principles of Natural Justice -
Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Adequacy and reliability of evidence not
open to re-appreciation
Held : High Court is not a Court of appeal over
the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
It is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in
that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Where there
is some evidence, which the authority entrusted
with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to
review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. Adequacy
or reliability of evidence cannot be looked into.
Petitioner was alleged to have submitted a fake
experience certificate for securing promotion to
the post of Manager. Inquiry was conducted on
eight dates; petitioner was granted opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses and to submit his
brief. The Inquiry Officer found the article of
charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after
considering the reply and report, imposed
penalty of "removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for future employment",
which was affirmed in appeal. Court found that
the petitioner was granted full opportunity to
place his case during inquiry. He crossexamined witnesses at length. There was no
error in decision making process. The impugned
order was passed on legal evidence, no
interference warranted. Writ Petition dismissed.
[Paras 13 - 17] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908

State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723

List of Acts
Article 226, Constitution of India; Regulation 28
of AAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 2003

List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Article 226; judicial
review;
no
evidence;
natural
justice;
proportionality; removal from service.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Disciplinary
Authority and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by
Appellate Authority, Airports Authority of India.

APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Sri Naman Agarwal, Sri Nipun
Singh
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri Santosh Kumar
Singh, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

## Text

7 All. Akansh Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.
65
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 65
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7181 of 2025

Akansh Choudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Naman Agarwal, Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Santosh Kumar Singh, Vivek
Kumar Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is warranted in disciplinary
proceedings where the inquiry was conducted in
accordance with law and there is some legal
evidence to support the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry -
Allegation
of
submission
of
fake
experience certificate - Removal from
service - Principles of Natural Justice -
Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Adequacy and reliability of evidence not
open to re-appreciation
Held : High Court is not a Court of appeal over
the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
It is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in
that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules
of natural justice are not violated. Where there
is some evidence, which the authority entrusted
with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to
review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. Adequacy
or reliability of evidence cannot be looked into.
Petitioner was alleged to have submitted a fake
experience certificate for securing promotion to
the post of Manager. Inquiry was conducted on
eight dates; petitioner was granted opportunity
to cross-examine witnesses and to submit his
brief. The Inquiry Officer found the article of
charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after
considering the reply and report, imposed
penalty of "removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for future employment",
which was affirmed in appeal. Court found that
the petitioner was granted full opportunity to
place his case during inquiry. He crossexamined witnesses at length. There was no
error in decision making process. The impugned
order was passed on legal evidence, no
interference warranted. Writ Petition dismissed.
[Paras 13 - 17] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhupendra Singh,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908

State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723

List of Acts
Article 226, Constitution of India; Regulation 28
of AAI Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 2003

List of Keywords
Disciplinary proceedings; Article 226; judicial
review;
no
evidence;
natural
justice;
proportionality; removal from service.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Disciplinary
Authority and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by
Appellate Authority, Airports Authority of India.

APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Sri Naman Agarwal, Sri Nipun
Singh
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
For Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri Santosh Kumar
Singh, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Naman Agarwal, learned
counsel for petitioner, Sri Vivek Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1
and Sri Utkarsh Prakash Singh, holding
brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is a 2013 graduate
in B.Tech (Mining Engineering) from a
prestigious institution, namely, IIT, (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand. He
has claimed that from 01.07.2013 to
30.01.2014, he worked as a Management
Trainee (Supply Chain) in a company
named, M/s Hansa Management Services
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'M/s
HMSPL')
and
subsequently,
from
31.01.2014 till 18.011.2017, worked as a
Trade Executive at another company
named M/s Zicron Sugar Solutions Pvt. Ltd
(hereinafter referred to as, 'M/s ZSSPL').

3. The dispute in present case is the
experience certificate issued by M/s ZSSPL
as it is alleged to be a fake experience
certificate
though
disputed
by
the
petitioner. The petitioner has applied for
the post of Junior Executive (Commercial)
at Airports Authority of India and at that
stage, he has not disclosed about his
experience as M/s ZSSPL and he cleared
the examination, interview and joined as
Junior
Executive
(Commercial)
at
Vadodara
Airport
with
effect
from
19.01.2017.

4. Later on in pursuance of an
advertisement No.2 of 2018, issued by
Airports Authority of India, the petitioner
has applied for the post of Manager
(Commercial), which requires a 5 years
experience in executive cadre in the field of
marketing. At this juncture, petitioner has
submitted an experience certificate dated
22.02.2017 issued by M/s ZSSPL. The
petitioner
was
successful
in
the
examination process and an appointment
letter dated 14.05.2019 was issued for the
post of Manager (Commercial) at AAI,
Coimbatore and he joined at said post on
03.06.2019.

5. It is further case of petitioner that
an anonymous unsigned complaint dated
10.05.2019 was sent at the Office of
respondents that experience certificate
issued from M/s ZSSPL submitted by
petitioner was fake. It is further case of
petitioner that experience certificate was
verified by M/s ZSSPL vide letter dated
16.03.2020 and 27.02.2021 in pursuance of
communications made by the respondents,
still a charge-sheet dated 03.11.2022 was
issued against petitioner for submitting a
fake experience certificate.

6. The petitioner has submitted a
reply and participated in the inquiry also
which is reflected from document annexed
along with this writ petition that he was
granted opportunity to cross examination of
witnesses
also.
The
Inquiry
Officer
submitted
an
inquiry
report
dated
06.11.2023, which refers that inquiry was
conducted as many as on 8 dates and
petitioner was allowed to participate and
has cross-examined witnesses at length.
The inquiry report is a detailed document,
wherein after analysing statements of
witnesses and their cross-examination and
documents, it was finally concluded that
article of charge No. 1 was proved that
experience
certificate
submitted
by
petitioner that he has worked from
7 All. Akansh Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.
67
31.01.2014 to 18.01.2017 in M/s ZSSPL
was a fake document. The relevant part of
inquiry report is reproduced hereinafter :-

"VII.
ANALYSIS
OF
STATEMENTS
OF
PROSECUTION
WITNESSES MADE DURING THE
INQUIRY/EXAMINATION-
CROSS
EXAMINATION:

Out of 4 Prosecution witnesses. 3
were
present
on
tour
while
fourth
witness(Sh. Kamlesh H Shah, SM(HR)) had
been retired and went to abroad as
informed by controlling station and could
not joined the hearing.

During
the
inquiry,
P.O.
examined and CO cross examined the
witnesses.
 Sh. Hitesh Ratilal Vora, Mgr
(HR) (Emp no 10014700) from Vadodara
Airport, Sh. Sanjiv Dwivedi, Sr. Supdt (HR)
(Emp no 10021633) from Indore airport
and Sh. K Devadas, then CVO(I). now
JtGM(E-E)
(Emp
no
10000270)
Colmbatore Airport were the Prosecution
Witnesses called on tour on 14 and 15 Sept
23 at Varanasi.

1. Sh. Hitesh Ratilal Vora,
Mgr(HR)
was
examined
and
cross-
examined by PO and CO respectively on
14th Sept 23.
 He was asked by PO Sh. Abhay
Sinha about the procedure of submitting an
application to APD, Vadodara, prosecution
witness
replied
that
application
is
submitted directly to APD, Vadodara and
there after it is marked to concerned
section.

After not finding the entries in
service book regarding previous experience
prior to joining AAI, prosecution witness
asked CO verbally to submit it by
26.02.2019 but CO didn't submit and
prosecution witness filled the application in
service book after discussion with APD,
Vadodara.

It is to be noted that normally an
applicant who applied for a vacancy is
desirous to ensure that his credentials are
submitted/updated but CO never enquired
after submitting the application whether his
experience certificate are updated. This
creates doubt towards CO.

2. Sh. Sanjiv Dwivedi Sr. Supdt
(HR) was examined and cross- examined
on 14th Sept 23

He was asked by PO that any
written instructions given to him by Sh.
Hitesh Vora, then AM(HR), Vadodara
airport regarding the application of Sh.
Akansh
Choudhary,
Mgr(Commercial)
dated 12/11/2/18. Prosecution witness
replied that instruction was oral not written
and same is mentioned in his statement
dated 01.09.2020. He told that he received
the application on 13.02.2019 marked to
him. Further he kept the application
pending till further orders to comply Sh.
Hitesh Vora's instruction.

He further added that neither
oral or written instruction was given to him
to verify the experience related records
regarding
the
said
application
(dtd.
12.11.2018 by Sh. Akansh Choudhary)
from his service book/personal file.

He replied that as per written
instruction dtd 26.02.2019 by Sh. Hitesh
Vora the said application(dtd. 12.11.2018
by Sh. Akansh Choudhary) was filed in
personal file. On 26.02.2019 he had put a
note on the application "file in SB" so the
application was filed in personal file.
 3. Sh. K Devadas, JtGM(E-E)
was examined and cross- examined on 15th
Sept23.

Prosecution witness had visited
the site of ZSSPL, Pitampura, Delhi. It was
a room of size 3m X 4m having company
name board with only one chaukidar.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prosecution witness enquired chaukidar
about the person who signed the certificate
and asked him that he wanted to talk
regarding emails/letter sent to the company
Chaukidar directed him to another person
from nearby place. But that person was not
the person who had signed the certificate
This person told that already the reply had
been sent to Coimbatore airport and was
not ready to explain further question of
Prosecution witness.

CO cross examined all three
Prosecution witnesses. But in his cross
examination nowhere it seems that charges
on him is not true.

Their deposition in brief is
recorded in the Sheet dated 14/15 Sept
2023

The written statements of the
three Prosecution Witnesses who appeared
during the inquiry proceedings for their
depositions are placed in the enclosed
Folder No. 3 bearing No. PW-
1, PW-2 and PW-3.

After all the documents were
taken on record and the deposition of the
all the Witnesses was complete, both the
P.O. and the CO were advised to submit
their briefs so that the same could also be
taken into consideration while finalizing
the report. Part of the delay in submission
of the Inquiry Report was also on account
of late submission of these briefs by the PO
and the CO The briefs submitted by the PO
and the CO are placed in the enclosed
Folder No. 4

VIII.
EVALUATION
OF
EVIDENCE:

In support of allegations, the
Presenting Officer had produced all the
listad documents indicated in Annexure-III
of the Charge Sheet which were duly
marked and taken on record in the inquiry
as Ex-P- 01 to Ex-P-03. These documents
have been examined and analysis there on
has been recorded above where brief
description and significance of each of the
listed document taken on record has been
given.

On
the
basis
of
these
documents/statements the prosecution has
established that the charges leveled against
the CO seems true.

IX
CONCLUSION
&
FINDINGS

I have carefully gone through all
the
Articles
of
Charges,
the
listed
documents, statement of imputations of
misconduct, written briefs of P.O. and CO.,
evidences,
documents,
statements
and
testimony of Witnesses and their cross
examination during the inquiry. After
examining and going through in detail all
the above listed documents, evidences and
statements of witnesses and submissions
made during the hearings by the PO, CO
and the Prosecution Witnesses, I have come
to the conclusion that the Charges leveled
against CO seems true therefore my
findings are as under:

Article of Charge 1 - PROVED."

7. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority provided a copy of inquiry report
vide memorandum dated 29.12.2023 to
which petitioner has submitted reply and
the Disciplinary Authority by order dated
10.05.2024 finds that charges levelled
against him was rightly found to be proved
and thereby imposed a penalty of 'Removal
from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment', in
exercise
of
power
conferred
vide
Regulation
28
of
AAI
Employees
(Conduct,
Discipline
&
Appeal)
Regulations, 2003.

8. The petitioner submitted an
appeal before the Appellate Authority,
7 All. Akansh Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors.
69
however, it was dismissed by an order
dated 16.01.2025.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner
has
submitted
that
due
process
of
discplinary inquiry was not followed. The
petitioner was provided only 7 days time to
submit his reply. The inquiry has proceeded
on basis of such documents, which were
never confronted to him and explanation
made by him was not considered. The
experience certificate issued by M/s ZSSPL
was verified. The inspection conducted by
respondent at the office of M/s ZSSPL was
an ex-parte inspection. The absence of
details of salary received from M/s ZSSPL
in Income Tax Return of relevant years
could not be considered adverse to
petitioner since it may be an error since he
was not well versed about Income Tax
Rules.

10. Per contra, learned counsels for
respondents on basis of materials and
documents available on record submitted
that principle of natural justice were
substantially followed. Petitioner has for
the first time produced the experience
certificate issued by M/s ZSSPL when he
has
applied
for
post
of
Manager
(Commercial) and it was never disclosed
on earlier occasion when he has applied in
the same institution i.e. Airport Authority
of India for the post of Junior Executive
(Commercial). The petitioner was granted
ample opportunity of cross-examination
which he has availed also, therefore, orders
impugned are justified. There is no legal
error in decision making process. The
punishment
is
not
shockingly
proportionate, therefore, this writ petition
may be dismissed.

11. Heard counsel for parties and
perused the record.
12.
Before
considering
rival
submissions, few paragraphs of judgment
passed by Supreme Court in The State of
Rajasthan and others Vs. Bhupendra
Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 being
relevant are mentioned hereinafter :-

"23. The scope of examination
and interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Constitution') in a case of the
present nature, is no longer res integra. In
State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama
Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench
stated:

'7. ... The High Court is not
constituted in a proceeding under Article
226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal
over the decision of the authorities holding
a departmental enquiry against a public
servant : it is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf,
and whether the rules of natural justice are
not violated. Where there is some evidence,
which the authority entrusted with the duty
to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence. The High Court may
undoubtedly
interfere
where
the
departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision
by
some
considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or
where the conclusion on the very face of it
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at that conclusion, or on similar
grounds. But the departmental authorities
are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly
held, the sole judges of facts and if there be
some legal evidence on which their findings
can be based, the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be
permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution.'
(emphasis supplied)"

13. Petitioner is an alumni of a very
prestigious institution of this country,
therefore, he ought to have been a bonafide
person that for purpose of procuring
appointment, he would not have mislead
his employer. The allegations against
applicant are very serious in nature that he
has produced a fake experience certificate
from M/s ZSSPL to get appointment.

14. On basis of record, it could be
very safely concluded, that the petitioner
was granted full opportunity to place his
case during inquiry. He has cross-examined
witnesses at length, therefore, there is no
error
in
decision
making
process.
Consequently, the Court is left with only
consideration whether it was a case of no
evidence or not. As referred in The State
of Rajasthan and others (supra) that
adequately and reliability of evidence can
not be look into. In this regard, the Court
takes note of the following circumstances :-

(a)
The
petitioner
has
not
submitted experience certificate from M/s
ZSSPL when he was initially appointed as
Junior Executive Commercial at Vadodara
Airport on 19.01.2017 and for the first
time, it was produced when he has applied
subsequently for the post of Manager
Commercial in the year 2018.

(b)
The
proceedings
were
initiated on basis of anonymous complaint
and that experience certificate was false. A
verification report was sought from M/s
ZSSPL, which has verified, however, in
order to further verification, one of
witnesses has visited the office of M/s
ZSSPL and surprisingly it was found that it
was one room office, having minimal staff
of one or two persons, therefore, there was
a substance in complaint that experience
certificate issued was not genuine i.e.
petitioner may have not worked with said
company or existence of such company
was under dispute.

(c) As referred above, petitioner
has examined the said witness at length. A
copy of which is annexed along with
supplementary affidavit, however, there
was no question about inspection of office
of M/s ZSSPL, therefore, the said fact
remained uncontroverted i.e. proved.

15. In above background, there are
other adverse factors against petitioner also
such as petitioner was not able to show
mode of salary drawn from M/s ZSSPL for
five years. The petitioner has admittedly
not shown his salary from M/s ZSSPL in
Income Tax Returns and explanation that
he was not aware about income tax law was
rightly not accepted since the petitioner is
not a layman. He is graduate from a very
prestigious institution. The Court is of
opinion that since there is no error in
decision making process and since the
impugned order was passed on legal
evidence, no interference is warranted.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances,
taking note of limited scope available with
7 All. Shambhoo Nath Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71
this
Court
to
interfere
with
disciplinary proceedings, no case is made
out to cause interference in the impugned
order of punishment.

17.
Accordingly, present
Writ
Petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 71
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 9142 of 2025

Shambhoo Nath Kushwaha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddhath Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a transfer order by way of
disciplinary action for violation or noncompliance of the directives issued by the
higher authorities, amounts to a punitive
and stigmatic transfer, vitiated by malice
in law.

HEADNOTE
A. Service Law - Transfer - Punitive and
Stigmatic Transfer - Clause 12 of Transfer
Policy dated 06.05.2025 - Office bearers
of Employees' Union - Scope - Whether
transfer based on complaint alleging
indiscipline amounts to punitive action -
Held, yes.
Petitioner,
an
office
bearer
of
the
Employees' Union, challenged his transfer
contending that it was based on a
complaint alleging negligence and lack of
interest in administrative duties.
Held: As laid down by the Supreme Court
in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, AIR
2009 SC 1399, a transfer made by way of
or in lieu of punishment attracts malice in
law and is unsustainable. In the present
case, the action to transfer was taken by
way of punishment, as the authorities
assigned
reasons
of
indiscipline
and
violation of directives of the higher
authorities by the petitioner. Transfer
order dated 13.06.2025 quashed. Liberty
reserved to the authorities to pass a fresh
transfer order in administrative exigency
for the session 2026-2027. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors.,
AIR 2009 SC 1399.
List of Acts
- U.P. Transfer Policy dated 06.05.2025;
Clause 12- Constitution of India, Article
226.
List of Keywords
Transfer - Punitive Transfer - Stigmatic
Order - Malice in Law - Employees' Union
- Office Bearer - Administrative Exigency
-
Clause
12
of
Transfer
Policy
-
Disciplinary Allegations - Service Law.
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 13 June 2025 challenged.
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner : Sri Siddharth Khare,
Advocate
For the Respondents : Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)