State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others vs Varun Pratap Singh Pno No. 941020091 — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others vs Varun Pratap Singh Pno No. 941020091 — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition admitted for consideration: notice issued to the respondent; petitioners to take steps both ways and file affidavit of service within two weeks; matter listed on 03.02.2026; interim stay of the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 till the next date of listing. No final merits decision rendered at this stage.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1775/2023 ought to be quashed by way of a writ of certiorari, as prayed for by the State petitioners. +1 more

Court's answer

Operative directions: notice was ordered to the respondent; the petitioners are to take steps both ways and file an affidavit of service within two weeks; the matter is to be listed on 03.02.2026; and till the next date of listing the impugned Tribunal judgment and order shall remain stayed.

Key takeaways

On going through the enquiry report, the bench found that there were two specific charges against the respondent: misbehaviour with his subordinates, and using office staff to do household work.obiter¶¶19
The charge relating to use of office staff for doing the respondent's household chores was, in the bench's view, proved to the hilt.obiter¶¶19
Prima facie, the bench found that the respondent was not maintaining absolute integrity (required by Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules), as he was using office staff to do his household work instead of employing house help from his Government salary.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow), Writ-A No. 14845 of 2025 (Court No. 2), decided January 6, 2026 (Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. and Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.). The State of U.P. (through Prin. Secy., Home, Lucknow, and 3 others) sought a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No. 1775/2023 (Varun Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others), whereby — as recited by the petitioners — the Tribunal had held that merely not speaking in a sweet manner to subordinates is not misconduct, that the act of misconduct must be precisely and specifically stated in the rules, standing orders or service regulations, that the employer cannot fish out conduct as misconduct to punish an employee, and that even bad intention does not bring conduct within the category of misconduct. Examining the enquiry report (on which minor penalties had been awarded; 16 of 24 employees posted under the respondent had made out the charges), the bench found two specific charges — misbehaviour with subordinates and use of office staff for household work — regarded the household-work charge as proved to the hilt, and held prima facie that use of office staff for household work showed non-maintenance of the absolute integrity required by Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules. Finding that the matter required consideration, the Court ordered notice to the respondent, steps/affidavit of service within two weeks, listing on 03.02.2026, and an interim stay of the Tribunal's judgment and order till the next date of listing. No precedent was cited and no final merits determination was made at this interlocutory stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 14845 of 2025

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Varun Pratap Singh Pno No. 941020091

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 2

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Heard Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State/petitioners.

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1775/2023 (Varun Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others), as contained in Annexures No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

(ii) to issue any other writ order or direction in favour of the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iii) to allow the costs of the writ petition."

It is the case of the petitioners that in the enquiry held on the basis of a complaint made by some employees, out of 24 employees posted under the respondent, 16 had given statements which clearly made out the charges that were levelled against the respondent. However, the learned Tribunal has observed that merely because the respondent was not speaking in a sweat manner to his subordinates, it would not amount to misconduct. The act of misconduct must be precisely and specifically stated in the rules or standing orders or service regulations. It is not open for the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish an employee. Also, even if the intention

WRIA No. 14845 of 2025

2

of the employee was bad, his conduct does not come within the category of misconduct.

We have gone through the enquiry report submitted, in pursuance whereof minor penalties were awarded to the respondent and we find that there were two specific charges against the respondent, one related to misbehaviour with his subordinates and the other related to using office staff to do household work. The charge relating to using of office staff for doing his household chores was proved to the hilt. Under Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, the employees should maintain absolute integrity and should perform their duties to the best of his abilities. Prima facie, we find that the respondent was not maintaining absolute integrity, as he was using office staff to do his household work. He could have easily employed a house help to assist his mother in doing household work from the salary he was getting from the Government. We, therefore, find that the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to the respondent.

The petitioners shall take steps both ways and file an affidavit of service within two weeks.

List this matter on 03.02.2026.

Till the next date of listing, the impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed.

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) January 6, 2026 Shubhankar

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench