Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy., Deptt. Irrigation, Water Resources and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy., Deptt. Irrigation, Water Resources and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim stay: operation of the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 stayed until further orders of the Court; counter affidavit directed within four weeks and case listed in the week commencing 09.03.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned punishment order dated 04.12.2025 is vitiated because it is virtually the same as the earlier order dated 28.05.2024, neither fresh material nor oral inquiry having been conducted to substantiate the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Interim operative direction: until further orders of the Court, operation of the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 shall remain stayed.

Key takeaways

Provisional prima facie view: submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration; opposite parties granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit (points expressly left open for adjudication).obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - A No. 901 of 2026, decided 29 January 2026 (Manish Mathur, J.). Service law / disciplinary proceedings (interim order). Petitioner, exonerated by inquiry report dated 17.07.2020 on a charge sheet dated 22.08.2019, was issued a notice dated 11.10.2022 under Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 upon the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the Inquiry Report; order dated 28.05.2024 imposed the same penalties without considering his reply; the appeal was allowed on 18.10.2024 for want of cogent reasons to differ with the Inquiry Officer and for denial of hearing. After a fresh opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 re-inflicted stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect, minor penalty of 'censure' and recovery of approximately Rs.3.86 crores — allegedly virtually identical to the earlier order, without fresh material or oral inquiry, while simultaneously issuing major and minor penalties and relying on preliminary inquiry findings in which the petitioner did not participate. The Court observed that the submissions prima facie have force and require consideration, granted four weeks to the opposite parties to file counter affidavit, listed the case in the week commencing 09.03.2026, and stayed operation of the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 until further orders.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 901 of 2026

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy., Deptt. Irrigation, Water Resources And 2 Others

2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Utsav Mishra, Parth Bhalla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 7

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Heard Mr. Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 04.12.2025 whereby punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect alongwith minor penalty of 'censure' and recovery of approximately Rs.3.86 crores has been inflicted upon the petitioner.

It is submitted that earlier petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 22.08.2019 containing one primary charge levelled against him and in the ensuing inquiry proceedings, petitioner was exonerated vide inquiry report dated 17.07.2020 whereafter the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the Inquiry Report issued notice dated 11.10.2022 to petitioner under Rule 9 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and even without considering the reply to the show cause notice dated 11.10.2022 passed the order dated 28.05.2024 visiting the petitioner with same penalties.

It is submitted that the aforesaid order was appealed there against with the appeal being allowed on 18.10.2024 primarily on the ground that no cogent reason had been indicated to differ with

WRIA No. 901 of 2026

2

the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him.

It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, a fresh opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner but the earlier punishment order has been kept intact. It is submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the present punishment order is virtually is the same as the earlier punishment order dated 28.05.2024 inasmuch as neither fresh material nor oral inquiry has been conducted to substantiate disagreement with Disciplinary Authority from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

It is submitted that in case the Disciplinary Authority was to take a view contrary to that of Inquiry officer, it was incumbent upon him to have addressed all relevant material which was considered by the Inquiry officer and to have permitted fresh oral inquiry whereafter a finding of guilty of petitioner could have been established. Such a procedure having not been followed vitiates the impugned order.

Learned counsel also submits that by means of impugned punishment order major and minor penalties have been simultaneously issued which is against enunciated law. It is also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order has relied upon findings recorded in the preliminary inquiry in which petitioner was not permitted to participate.

Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List this case in the week commencing 09.03.2026.

Until further orders of this Court, operation of the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 shall remain stayed.

January 29, 2026

lakshman

(Manish Mathur,J.)

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench