Disposed¶¶15

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others v. Akhilesh Kumar

Service law – censure entry – quashed by Tribunal

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025WRIA/11594/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

censure entry; preliminary inquiry; Inquiry Officer; conclusion of guilt; Disciplinary Authority; independent decision to censure; show cause notice; reply; prima facie tenability; prejudice; quashing by Tribunal; service jurisprudence; State of U.P. v. Akhilesh Kumar; WRIT - A No. 11594 of 2025; notice issued; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 1; Rajan Roy J.; Prashant Kumar J.; Shri Mohit Jauhari Additional Chief Standing Counsel; C.S.C.; September 25, 2025; interlocutory order.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: notice to be issued to the respondent; the writ petition remains pending. ¶¶15

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others vs Akhilesh Kumar — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: notice to be issued to the respondent; the writ petition remains pending.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the censure entry on the ground that the Inquiry Officer conducting the preliminary inquiry should not have recorded a conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent employee. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

Prima facie, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for quashing the censure entry — that the Inquiry Officer conducting the preliminary inquiry should not have recorded the conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent employee but only findings on the allegations — does not appear to be a correct understanding of the law nor borne out from the facts.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The preliminary inquiry report only records prima facie findings and conclusion; the Disciplinary Authority is distinct from the Inquiry Officer and has taken an independent decision to censure the conduct of the opposite party; therefore, the Inquiry Officer recording such a conclusion could not have been the basis for quashing the censure entry.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

On the Tribunal's second ground, the reply to the show cause notice was on the record of the Tribunal and is on the record of this Court; read conjointly with the preliminary inquiry report, the Tribunal should have considered how far the response was prima facie tenable and what prejudice, if any, had been caused.ratio¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — censure entry — quashed by Tribunal — Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajan Roy & Prashant Kumar, JJ.), Writ - A No. 11594 of 2025, State of U.P. v. Akhilesh Kumar, decided September 25, 2025. Interim order. Held, prima facie: (i) the Tribunal's ground that the Inquiry Officer conducting the preliminary inquiry should not have recorded a conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent employee is not a correct understanding of the law nor borne out from the facts, since the preliminary inquiry report only records prima facie findings and conclusion and the Disciplinary Authority, being distinct from the Inquiry Officer, independently decided to censure — hence this could not be a basis for quashing the censure entry; (ii) the reply to the show cause notice was on record of the Tribunal and the High Court and, read conjointly with the preliminary inquiry report, the Tribunal should have considered how far the response was prima facie tenable and what prejudice, if any, was caused. Notice issued to the respondent.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others v. Akhilesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others v. Akhilesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex 628589 Mwo (Hfo) Tek Chand Joshi

Sunil Bajaj vs Master Vivan Bajaj Thru. His Mother Respondent No. 2 Arjita Grover and Another

Munna Singh vs Bar Council of U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Chairman and 2 Others

Himanshu Rana and Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of School Education and Literacy , New Delhi and Others

M/S Prithvi Agro Farm Producer Co. Thru. Proprietor Ragini Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Urban Development Lko. and 3 Others

Arun Tomar and 3 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 3 Others