Vishal Singh (Pno-152620691) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 4

#1. Heard Mr. Anupam Shukla and Mr. Manish Vaish, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

#2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 21.09.2025 with regard to transfer of petitioner as well as relieving order dated 22.09.2025.

#3. It has been submitted that from a perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioner was transferred on account of some report which was submitted against him. It is submitted that although petitioner was not provided a copy of the report but the nature of order impugned indicates it having been passed as a mode of punishment, which is against the dictum laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592.

#4. Learned State Counsel has earlier also been provided written instructions dated 06.12.2025 and has also been provided fresh instructions dated 15.12.2025, a copy of which are taken on record and reiterates the aspects that petitioner's transfer has been effected on account of confidential reports submitted against him, which clearly indicate his connivance with criminals of the area as also negligence towards discharge of duties.

#5. Despite time having been granted, the reports which form the basis 2 WRIA No. 14641 of 2025 of allegations levelled against petitioner have not been produced due to which exact allegations levelled against petitioner in the report submitted today appear to be vague.

#6. It is also evident from instructions as well as report that petitioner has been transferred as a mode of punishment, which is clearly against the law enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari (supra).

#7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and law indicated, impugned orders dated 21.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh, if required, but only in administrative exigencies or public interest and not as a mode of punishment.

#8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. December 17, 2025 lakshman (Manish Mathur,J.) LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench