Dismissed¶13

Virendra Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2025WRIA/5458/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Claim Petition No. 2484 of 2021; censure punishment; disclosure of POCSO victim's identity; show cause notice 15.3.2021; preliminary report drawn 18.1.2021, non-service not specifically pleaded in reply; documents open to inspection or supply on demand; no denial of relevant material; disciplinary enquiry procedure duly followed; reasoned Tribunal order, no interference; writ petition dismissed (WRIT - A No. 5458 of 2025, Lucknow Bench, 22.5.2025).

What did the court decide?

No specific plea of non-service of the preliminary report was set out in the explanation filed by the petitioner; his objection against the show cause notice was, as a matter of fact, confined to some documents not being furnished to him alongwith the notice. ¶9

Virendra Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner suffered procedural irregularity owing to the alleged non-service of the preliminary report and non-furnishing of certain documents alongwith the show cause notice, depriving him of a fair opportunity to submit his reply. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The show cause notice was accompanied with the preliminary report, based on which it was issued.

¶9

Key takeaways

It was left open to the petitioner to inspect the official documents or to demand supply of any document, if so required.ratio¶9
Nothing was placed before the Court on the basis of which it could be concluded that the petitioner was denied any document or access to any material relevant for submitting his reply.ratio¶10
The Tribunal's observation that the procedure in the matter of holding the disciplinary enquiry was duly followed does not suffer from any illegality, either on the ground of non-application of mind or of failure to hold the disciplinary enquiry to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 5458 of 2025; decided 22.5.2025 (Attau Rahman Masoodi and Rajeev Singh, JJ.). Virendra Vikram Singh challenged the judgement of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 2484 of 2021, whereby his claim against a censure punishment — imposed by order dated 25.10.2021 (appeal rejected 25.11.2021) over alleged disclosure of the identity of a victim in a case under the POCSO Act — was finally dismissed. The Court found that the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice dated 15.3.2021 contained no specific plea of non-service of the preliminary report (drawn 18.1.2021); the notice travelled with the preliminary report on which it was based, and the petitioner was left free to inspect official documents or demand supply of any document; nothing on record showed denial of any document or material relevant to his reply. The Tribunal's observation that the disciplinary procedure was duly followed therefore suffered no illegality on the ground of non-application of mind or failure to hold the enquiry; its reasoned judgement called for no interference, and the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30636-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5458 of 2025

¶5

Petitioner :- Virendra Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Misra,Ashok Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

The present writ petition is instituted by the petitioner against the judgement/order passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 2484 of 2021 directed against the order of censure punishment which was finally dismissed

¶8

The minor punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner after he was put to notice on 15.3.2021 setting out definite allegations therein regarding disclosure of identity of the victim in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

¶9

The show cause notice dated 15.3.2021 was issued in the background of a preliminary report copy whereof is said not to have not been served upon the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice. The preliminary report is stated to have been drawn on 18.1.2021.

¶10

The petitioner filed his reply against the show cause notice on 24.3.2021 setting out in detail the explanations in response thereto. The explanation put forth by the petitioner also did not find favour with, therefore, a punishment of censure was imposed upon him by order dated 25.10.2021.

¶11

¶12

The petitioner filed an appeal against the above order before the appellate authority but the same was also rejected vide order dated 25.11.2021.

¶13

The petitioner feeling aggrieved against both the orders mentioned above, approached the U.P. Public Service Tribunal praying for quashment of the same. On exchange of pleadings, the matter was heard by the Tribunal and was finally decided by means of the judgement impugned here in this writ petition.

¶14

On a perusal of the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal, it is gathered from the judgement passed that no procedural irregularity is attributed against the disciplinary authority regarding the decision making on the touchstone of opportunity. To this extent, there is no dispute raised by the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the response filed against the show cause notice, the petitioner had raised a specific plea of not being served with the preliminary report alongwith the show cause notice.

¶16

This submission made by the petitioner, when tested in the light of the explanation filed by him, does not stand to reason, inasmuch as, no specific plea in this regard has been set out in the explanation filed by the petitioner. The objection against the show cause notice, as a matter of fact, is to the effect that some documents were not furnished to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice. The show cause notice, on the contrary, was accompanied with the preliminary report, based on which, the same was

¶17

¶18

issued. It was further left open to the petitioner to inspect the official documents or to demand supply of any document, if it was so required.

¶19

Nothing has been placed before us on the basis of which it can be concluded that the petitioner was denied any document or access to any material relevant for submitting his reply.

¶20

That being so, the observation made by the Tribunal that the procedure in the matter of holding the disciplinary enquiry was duly followed, does not suffer from any illegality, either on the ground of nonapplication of mind or holding the disciplinary enquiry to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

¶21

The judgement passed by the Tribunal being a reasoned and well speaking order, does not call for any inteference by this Court.

¶22

The writ petition filed by the petitioner, bereft of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

(Rajeev Singh, J.) (A R Masoodi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Fahim/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz the Complainant of Fir NO.96/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others vs Amit Kumar and 2 Others

Sunita Nishad and Another Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Female Constable Komal Sharma, Pno No. 212431395 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others