Safiya Malik

The Allahabad High Court set aside an order issued by the Joint Secretary, Law Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, which had terminated the attachment of the petitioner, a former Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) in Hathras, from his position. The court ruled that the action taken by the state lacked sufficient justification and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement within three weeks.

The petitioner, Raj Pal Singh Dishwar, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated May 10, 2024, which communicated the state government’s approval of his removal from the panel of ADGCs (Criminal). The petitioner contended that the order was based on an inquiry report submitted by a two-member committee comprising the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Circle Officer of Hathras.

The petitioner argued that the inquiry report, dated January 3, 2024, relied on vague material, including a video allegedly showing him making objectionable comments against Mahatma Gandhi. However, the source of the video and the means through which it was obtained were not disclosed in the inquiry. The petitioner further submitted that he was not afforded an opportunity to present his defense before the inquiry committee, rendering the proceedings against him procedurally flawed.

The state, represented by the Standing Counsel, acknowledged that the inquiry report served as the sole basis for the petitioner’s dismissal. It was admitted that the authenticity of the video was not verified and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry process.

The counsel for the complainant argued that a new panel of ADGCs (Criminal) had already been constituted, effectively ousting the petitioner from his previous role.

The division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra reviewed the submissions and examined the materials presented. The court observed procedural irregularities in the inquiry process, noting that the authenticity of the video had not been verified and that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The court stated: “The entire action against the petitioner appears to be full of malice, and it is apparent that vague material, the authenticity whereof was not established even in the inquiry conducted, has been utilized to the detriment of the petitioner.”

Additionally, the court found that the inquiry report itself contained observations that were favorable to the petitioner. Despite this, the state government relied solely on the report to justify its decision. The court observed: “There being no other material which might justify taking of action against the petitioner, we are of the view that the State Government was not justified in passing the order impugned.”

The court issued the following directives:

1. Quashing of Impugned Order: The court set aside the dismissal order dated May 10, 2024, issued by the Joint Secretary, Law Department, State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Reinstatement of Petitioner: The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner as ADGC (Criminal) within three weeks.

The court noted: “The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated May 10, 2024, passed by the Joint Secretary, Law Department, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of A.D.G.C. (Criminal), Hathras, within a period of three weeks from today.”

Case Title: Raj Pal Singh Dishwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

Case Number: Writ - C No. 30430 of 2024

Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra

[Read/Download order]