# Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1800 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-21 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 4768 of 2026 - **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Satya Veer Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-upadhyay-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54425 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 1800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2026) 4 ILRA 1800 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. Writ A No. 4768 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether the alleged unauthorized steps of which, there are no adverse consequences and which were taken to deal the difficult situation arising out of the pandemic, should be scrutinized? Headnotes A. Service Law - On perusal of materials on record, nothing adverse has been found against petitioner but a clear picture emerges of administrative necessities having been met by him on exigencies arising. There is no adverse consequence of alleged unauthorized steps taken by petitioner at all reverted to in the inquiry report. The difficult situation arising out of the pandemic was dealt with by the administration on petitioner having contributed his bit. He then came to be under scrutiny and has been punished. In the inquiry there was no reference to the District Magistrate, but clear implication in the inquiry report that even though there may have been oral direction, post facto approval ought to have been obtained. The pressure of work dealt with cannot in hindsight be under scrutiny on pedantic approach of having violated a rule, when the emergent situation of the pandemic was well met by the administration. (Para 9) Impugned punishment order and judgment are set aside and quashed, with consequent restoration of the increments denied. The Departmental Promotion Committee's (DPC) report on the petitioner, which has been kept in sealed cover, be opened and evaluated as a consequence of this judgment and in event the report so recommends, petitioner be given the promotion retrospectively. (Para 10) Writ petition allowed and disposed of. (E-4) List of Keywords Punishment, inquiry report, departmental, promotion, committee, increment. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Bhim Sen Pandey, Kartikey Pandey For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Mahendra Narain Singh (Delivered by Hon'ble 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 4 All. Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1801 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. 1802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "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 irregularity. Thus, by exhibiting negligence towards your official duties, you have disobeyed the orders of the Government and higher authorities, for which you are liable. The following evidence shall be relied upon in support of this charge: 1. Inquiry report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 26.04.2022." It is sufficient for us to reproduce a paragraph from aforesaid inquiry report, in respect of charge no. 2. "From the above, it is evident that the delinquent officer, during his tenure, effected transfer of Secretaries without obtaining approval from the competent authority. Even if, for any reason, the District Magistrate had orally directed such transfers, post-facto approval ought to have been obtained. Accordingly, the aforesaid charge stands proved against the delinquent officer." 5. Charge no. 3 is reproduced below. "Charge No. 3 That in relation to the deployment of Secretaries cluster-wise in Development Block Sadat of District Ghazipur, upon the proposal dated 30.01.2021 submitted by the Block Development Officer, Sadat, approval was obtained from the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on 10.02.2021, and accordingly, you issued deployment orders of Gram Panchayat Secretaries vide Office Order No. 9085 dated 11.02.2021. Subsequently, upon receipt of a fresh proposal dated 26.09.2021 from the Block Development Officer, Sadat regarding deployment of Gram Panchayat Secretaries, you, without obtaining approval from the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, issued Office Order No. 4858 dated 04.10.2021 at your own level, thereby altering the clusters and issuing deployment orders. Further, in Development Block Mardah, without receiving any proposal from the Block Development Officer, Mardah, you, by including Gram Panchayat Bahtura (earlier part of Cluster Gariha) into Cluster Gai, issued Office Order No. 4007 dated 13.09.2021 and deployed Shri Anjani Kumar Sonkar, Gram Vikas Adhikari, without obtaining approval from the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, which is in contravention of Government instructions, for which you are liable. The following evidence shall be relied upon in support of this charge: 1. Inquiry report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 26.04.2022." 6. We find from the inquiry report that petitioner as the Charged Officer (CO) had issued orders dated 4th October, 2021 for cluster-wise deployment of Secretaries, strictly in accordance with the proposal submitted by the Block Development Officer (BDO) without making any 4 All. Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1803 modification and, subject to approval of the District Magistrate. Similarly, the (CO) had issued order dated 13th September, 2021 clearly stating that the named two persons were being attached as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bahtura until approval of the District Magistrate was obtained. However, no such approval was obtained. Hence, the charge was found proved against the CO. 7. Petitioner's claim petition was disposed of on impugned judgment dated 10th February, 2026 of the Tribunal. Paragraph 9 from the judgment is reproduced below. "9. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and have also perused the records available on file, which clearly indicate that the transfer of 1027 personnel was carried out without obtaining approval from the competent authority. The defence put forth by the applicant is not acceptable, as in the event that oral approval had indeed been granted by the District Magistrate, the applicant had sufficient opportunity to place such oral directions on record and obtain ex-post facto approval. However, upon examination of the entire record, no such document is found on file. The transfer policy is issued by the State Government from time to time and is a binding policy guideline, which clearly prescribes the level of approval required, the procedure for proposal and approval of transfers, and the provisions governing any permissible deviation. From the perusal of records, it is evident that neither approval from the competent authority was obtained for the transfers nor was approval obtained for exceeding the permissible limit of transfers (20 percent). The plea taken by the applicant regarding pressure from employee unions cannot, in any circumstance, constitute a valid ground for deviation from statutory rules." 8. Dr. Tripathi, submits, there should not be interference. The Tribunal's judgment was passed upon hearing petitioner. There is no illegality. The writ petition be dismissed. Mr. B.S. Pandey in reply submits, decisions taken by his client were necessary for the purpose of administration as it was during Covid time. On query he submits, there is no allegation of corruption against his client. The persons transferred and attached discharged their duties. 9. Under challenge are the punishment order and the judgment. The punishment order clearly relied upon the inquiry report. While charge no. 1 could not be proved against petitioner, in respect of charge no. 2 there is implication that the District Magistrate may have orally directed the transfers but post facto approval ought to have been obtained. So far as charge no. 3 is concerned, the inquiry report says that petitioner had passed the transfer and attachment orders on expressly indicating them to be subject to approval of the District Magistrate. On query we have ascertained from Dr. Tripathi that the District Magistrate was not examined in the inquiry. In the circumstances petitioner appears to have discharged his duty regarding the administration on meeting exigencies and, it can be presumed, upon obtaining oral directions/approval form the District Magistrate. The Tribunal in confirming the punishment order has referred to 1027 personnel having been transferred by petitioner, without approval. It is clear reference to charge no. 1, found not to be proved. On perusal of materials on record, we do not find anything adverse against petitioner but a clear picture emerges of administrative necessities having been met by him on exigencies arising. We reiterate, there is no adverse consequence of alleged unauthorized steps taken by petitioner, at all reverted to in the inquiry report. The difficult situation arising out of the pandemic was dealt with by the administration on petitioner having contributed his bit. He then came to be under scrutiny and has been punished. In the inquiry there was no reference to the District Magistrate, but 1804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES clear implication in the inquiry report that even though there may have been oral direction, post facto approval ought to have been obtained. The pressure of work dealt with cannot in hindsight be under scrutiny on pedantic approach of having violated a rule, when the emergent situation of the pandemic was well met by the administration. 10. Impugned punishment order and judgment are set aside and quashed, with consequent restoration of the increments denied. Mr. Pandey submits, the Departmental Promotion Committee's (DPC) report on his client has been kept in sealed cover. It be opened and evaluated as a consequence of this judgment and in event the report so recommends, petitioner be given the promotion retrospectively. 11. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1804 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 5237 of 2008 Anil Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether the State can avoid paying salary to an employee who was recruited through an open, nonbackdoor process by relying indefinitely on its own bureaucratic delay in formalizing a post-sanction? (b) Whether State can refuse to sanction posts indefinitely where the work is perennial in nature and employees have been working for long years? (c) Whether non-payment of salary for work taken is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to exploitation? Headnotes A. Service Law - Petitioner No. 1 had been granted a promotion and Petitioner No. 3 had received a fresh appointment. Consequently, the ongoing petition explicitly agitated the grievances of Petitioner No. 2 alone. Kamla Nehru Institute of Physical and Social Sciences, Sultanpur, is a recognized higher education institution affiliated with Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, and governed by the university's Statute of 1978. Facing an acute shortage of administrative staff, the Committee of Management issued a recruitment notice in The Times of India (11.08.2004) and a local daily (17.08.2004) inviting applications for Class III posts. Following evaluation by a duly constituted selection committee, Petitioner No. 2 secured the highest rank and was issued an appointment order on 08.11.2004, under anticipation of post-sanction. The institution had submitted a formal proposal for the creation and sanction of clerical posts to the Director of Higher Education as early as 31.08.1998. Despite reminders in 2002 and 2004, the State authorities sat on the proposal indefinitely.