High Court · 2025

No.478 of 2022. It is urged that this Court in Writ-A No.5623 of 2025 allowed the writ of Apsar Miyan on 23.5.2025. The petitioner is also entitled to similar indulgence as a vague charge had been levelled against the petitioner which apparently from the record could not be sustained.

12. It is further urged that if the statement which was given by the petitioner is noticed, it would indicate that merely on the basis of a telephone call which in any manner, did not connect or indicate any complicity of the petitioner yet inferences have been drawn which are per se arbitrary and against the weight of the material on record. It is further urged that this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of while dismissing the appeal as well as the petition filed by the petitioner before the Public Services Tribunal, and as such the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Constable Sandeep Kumar bearing Writ-A No.648 of 2023, taking note of the manner in which the inquiry was held was pleased to allow the petition. Similar indulgence was also granted by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, (of which one of us A.R.Masoodi,J was a member) in Writ-A No.8018 of 2022 which was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2024.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid submissions and it has been urged that the departmental proceedings including the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. His attempt to challenge the same before the Public Services Tribunal also met the same fate. These are findings of fact and moreover this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India generally do not intervene in service matters where the employee has already exhausted his remedy, in accordance with law.

15. The scope of interference in service matters is narrow and there are no accentuating circumstances which can bring the case of the petitioner within the four corners of law to enable this court to exercise its powers of judicial review, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the record indicates that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating why the findings of the inquiry ofÏcer may not be accepted. While passing the punishment order, it was noticed that the charge against the petitioner was that he was in touch and contact with the accused Kallu @ Shahid. It was also alleged that the petitioner had strong contacts and relations with the accused.

17. In response to the aforesaid charge, the petitioner had clearly given his version that it is only one solitary telephonic conversation which was held per chance. In this regard, the statement of the petitioner would be relevant to be seen. It was stated by the petitioner that he was deputed in Police Station Bhuta in January, 2023. On 9.5.2023, he received a call on his WhatsApp number and the said caller introduced himself as Shahid and that he was calling from Fatehganj west and he wanted to talk to the petitioner in respect of something very important. The petitioner is said to have stated that he was driving a vehicle and that he may call later. It was further stated that after about half an hour or approximately after an hour, he once again received a WhatsApp call and the said caller again identified himself as Shahid from Fatehganj West. The petitioner had inquired who Shahid had called and at that point of time, it is alleged that the said caller stated that he was implicated in proceedings initiated against him under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petitioner is said to have responded by saying that being a gangster is not big issue rather he chided him by saying that he should not run away after seeing the police and then the petitioner terminated the call.

18. The record would also indicate that apart from this one isolated telephone call which was verified through forensic examination, there is no other material against the petitioner.

19. Now this conversation, if, is the only basis for passing the punishment order, then it can be seen from another angle. The only version of the incriminating statement is the one given by the petitioner and there is no other version or transcript to contradict the statement of the petitioner. The fact which admittedly emerges is the fact that on one day, in an interval of an hour or so, the petitioner had received a call from the said caller Shahid. This in itself does not give any inference regarding there being close nexus of the the petitioner with the alleged gangster Shahid. During the entire inquiry, it could not be pointed out that what was the corroborating material to indicate that apart from this isolated call, the petitioner had been in close contact with the gangster and that he had misused his powers or he was guilty of any dereliction of his duties while performing his duties in Police Station Bhuta.

20. Even though the scope of departmental inquiry while dealing with the evidence and material is based on the proposition that a charge is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and even if this proposition is invoked in the instant case, it would reveal and it is an admitted case that apart from the statement of the petitioner, there is no other material against him. In such circumstances, either the statement is to be considered as a whole or it has to be discarded but it is not appropriate to cull out sentences in isolation to draw inferences as that would be impermissible.

21. It is an admitted fact which the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that similar charges were raised against Apsar Miyan who is said to have had close nexus with the same gangster and that he was guilty of leaking information which resulted in the gangster fleeing and could not be apprehended despite several raids. This aspect of the matter in the case of Apsar Miyan was considered by this Court in Writ-A No.5623 of 2025 which was allowed on 23.5.2025.

22. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 has merely reproduced the statement of the petitioner and without giving any reason has jumped to the conclusion of dismissing the claim petition.

23. In this context, apparently the manner in which the Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 does not inspire confidence. Be that as it may, as the only material which has resulted in the punishment order of the petitioner is his own statement which as noticed here-in-above, does not lead to any inference drawn in context with the charge against the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that the orders impugned cannot withstand judicial scrutiny despite the fact of narrow jurisdiction of this Court while appraising the departmental inquiry, yet it is equally true where any inference or a finding has been arrived at which is not based on cogent evidence, cannot be sustained. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 7.5.2025 passed by respondent no.1, punishment order dated 12.07.2023 as well as appellate order dated 21.1.2024 are hereby set aside. The consequences shall follow. . [Jaspreet Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order date : 30.5.2025. Shukla. ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

No.478 of 2022. It is urged that this Court in Writ-A No.5623 of 2025 allowed the writ of Apsar Miyan on 23.5.2025. The petitioner is also entitled to similar indulgence as a vague charge had been levelled against the petitioner which apparently from the record could not be sustained.

12. It is further urged that if the statement which was given by the petitioner is noticed, it would indicate that merely on the basis of a telephone call which in any manner, did not connect or indicate any complicity of the petitioner yet inferences have been drawn which are per se arbitrary and against the weight of the material on record. It is further urged that this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of while dismissing the appeal as well as the petition filed by the petitioner before the Public Services Tribunal, and as such the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Constable Sandeep Kumar bearing Writ-A No.648 of 2023, taking note of the manner in which the inquiry was held was pleased to allow the petition. Similar indulgence was also granted by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, (of which one of us A.R.Masoodi,J was a member) in Writ-A No.8018 of 2022 which was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2024.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the aforesaid submissions and it has been urged that the departmental proceedings including the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. His attempt to challenge the same before the Public Services Tribunal also met the same fate. These are findings of fact and moreover this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India generally do not intervene in service matters where the employee has already exhausted his remedy, in accordance with law.

15. The scope of interference in service matters is narrow and there are no accentuating circumstances which can bring the case of the petitioner within the four corners of law to enable this court to exercise its powers of judicial review, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the record indicates that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner indicating why the findings of the inquiry ofÏcer may not be accepted. While passing the punishment order, it was noticed that the charge against the petitioner was that he was in touch and contact with the accused Kallu @ Shahid. It was also alleged that the petitioner had strong contacts and relations with the accused.

17. In response to the aforesaid charge, the petitioner had clearly given his version that it is only one solitary telephonic conversation which was held per chance. In this regard, the statement of the petitioner would be relevant to be seen. It was stated by the petitioner that he was deputed in Police Station Bhuta in January, 2023. On 9.5.2023, he received a call on his WhatsApp number and the said caller introduced himself as Shahid and that he was calling from Fatehganj west and he wanted to talk to the petitioner in respect of something very important. The petitioner is said to have stated that he was driving a vehicle and that he may call later. It was further stated that after about half an hour or approximately after an hour, he once again received a WhatsApp call and the said caller again identified himself as Shahid from Fatehganj West. The petitioner had inquired who Shahid had called and at that point of time, it is alleged that the said caller stated that he was implicated in proceedings initiated against him under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petitioner is said to have responded by saying that being a gangster is not big issue rather he chided him by saying that he should not run away after seeing the police and then the petitioner terminated the call.

18. The record would also indicate that apart from this one isolated telephone call which was verified through forensic examination, there is no other material against the petitioner.

19. Now this conversation, if, is the only basis for passing the punishment order, then it can be seen from another angle. The only version of the incriminating statement is the one given by the petitioner and there is no other version or transcript to contradict the statement of the petitioner. The fact which admittedly emerges is the fact that on one day, in an interval of an hour or so, the petitioner had received a call from the said caller Shahid. This in itself does not give any inference regarding there being close nexus of the the petitioner with the alleged gangster Shahid. During the entire inquiry, it could not be pointed out that what was the corroborating material to indicate that apart from this isolated call, the petitioner had been in close contact with the gangster and that he had misused his powers or he was guilty of any dereliction of his duties while performing his duties in Police Station Bhuta.

20. Even though the scope of departmental inquiry while dealing with the evidence and material is based on the proposition that a charge is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and even if this proposition is invoked in the instant case, it would reveal and it is an admitted case that apart from the statement of the petitioner, there is no other material against him. In such circumstances, either the statement is to be considered as a whole or it has to be discarded but it is not appropriate to cull out sentences in isolation to draw inferences as that would be impermissible.

21. It is an admitted fact which the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that similar charges were raised against Apsar Miyan who is said to have had close nexus with the same gangster and that he was guilty of leaking information which resulted in the gangster fleeing and could not be apprehended despite several raids. This aspect of the matter in the case of Apsar Miyan was considered by this Court in Writ-A No.5623 of 2025 which was allowed on 23.5.2025.

22. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 has merely reproduced the statement of the petitioner and without giving any reason has jumped to the conclusion of dismissing the claim petition.

23. In this context, apparently the manner in which the Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 7.5.2025 does not inspire confidence. Be that as it may, as the only material which has resulted in the punishment order of the petitioner is his own statement which as noticed here-in-above, does not lead to any inference drawn in context with the charge against the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that the orders impugned cannot withstand judicial scrutiny despite the fact of narrow jurisdiction of this Court while appraising the departmental inquiry, yet it is equally true where any inference or a finding has been arrived at which is not based on cogent evidence, cannot be sustained. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 7.5.2025 passed by respondent no.1, punishment order dated 12.07.2023 as well as appellate order dated 21.1.2024 are hereby set aside. The consequences shall follow. . [Jaspreet Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order date : 30.5.2025. Shukla. ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench