No Intentional Attempt To Harm Government's Reputation: Allahabad HC Orders Reinstatement Of Govt. Official Terminated For Forwarding Objectionable Message Against UP CM
The Allahabad High Court held that the dismissal was disproportionate to the nature of the offence alleged.
The Allahabad High Court, while holding that there was no intention to harm the government’s reputation, has ordered the reinstatement of the government employee who was terminated for forwarding an objectionable message against the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister.
The Court set aside the termination of Amar Singh (Petitioner), an Additional Private Secretary in the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, holding that the intent to circulate the objectionable message, amounting to criticism of the Government via unauthorised communication, was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the alleged misconduct for failing to maintain disciplined behaviour under Rules 3 and 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 (1956 Rules) was also not established.
A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held, “I find that the Inquiry Officer concluded that Charge No. 1, relating to the circulation of an objectionable message criticizing the Government as per Rule 9 of the Rules, 1956, was not proven. Since the intention to circulate the objectionable message—amounting to criticism of the Government via unauthorized communication—was not substantiated, the act and conduct of the petitioner, which was alleged to be misconduct for failing to maintain disciplined behavior as required under Rules 3 and 7 of the Rules, 1956, was also not established.”
Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Neeraj Tripathi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was dismissed from service following allegations that he inadvertently forwarded a message on WhatsApp critical of the State Government. The message, received on July 6, 2018, accused the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of caste-based favouritism in appointments at Gorakhpur University. The Petitioner contended that he attempted to delete the message but accidentally forwarded it to the group. He later apologised to the Chief Secretary and requested group members to delete it.
The message (translated to English from Hindi) read as follows: "As per UGC regulations, opportunities for the OBC and Scheduled Caste communities have effectively been closed. In this era of Ramrajya, Chief Minister Thakur Ajay Singh Yogi and Deputy Chief Minister Pandit Dinesh Sharma, while purportedly eradicating casteism, have appointed 52 individuals from their own caste as Assistant Professors out of a total of 71 positions in Gorakhpur University."
During the departmental inquiry initiated against him, the Petitioner argued that he had no intent to cause reputational harm to the Government.
Later, a technical committee was constituted to investigate the matter and it found the Petitioner guilty of serious misconduct for forwarding an objectionable message against the Government.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the dismissal was disproportionate to the nature of the offence, especially in light of the lack of evidence regarding the circulation of the message. The Bench emphasised that “the department should have acknowledged the petitioner's fairness in admitting the mistake and could have issued a warning instead of imposing a harsh penalty.”
The Court stated that the second charge against the Petitioner was not proved at all, and the first charge was partially substantiated based on the Petitioner's admission that he had forwarded the message inadvertently.
“While the admission of forwarding the message inadvertently was considered strong evidence, the Court highlights that the admission did not indicate an intention to defame the Government. It was simply an acknowledgment of an error, and the petitioner had taken steps to mitigate any potential damage by deleting the message and informing others,” the Lucknow Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The dismissal order dated 7th September, 2020 is quashed. The Court orders the petitioner's reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The State Government is directed to impose a minor punishment, such as a warning, taking into account the petitioner's admission of the mistake and lack of evidence of any damage caused by the message.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:75)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Mehrotra, Akber Ahmad, Alina Masoodi and Ravindra Singh
Respondents: Standing Counsel Neeraj Tripathi
