Allahabad High Court
RAM KRISHNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The special appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Summary
Ram Krishna, a Collection Ameen, failed to meet his annual collection target, recovering less than half the required amount, and was suspended for about a month. A domestic inquiry was conducted, after which he was penalised with the loss of two increments and a censure entry. The appellant challenged the penalty, arguing the inquiry was defective and the punishment disproportionate. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ram Krishna v. State of U.P. which held that the inquiry was proper, the penalty not shockingly disproportionate, and that the appellant had been given adequate opportunity to be heard. Applying the same principles, the Court found no error in the disciplinary order and dismissed the special appeal as lacking merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the disciplinary inquiry into Ram Krishna's conduct was procedurally valid.
- Whether the penalty of loss of two increments and a censure entry is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
- Whether the special appeal against the disciplinary order merits interference under principles of judicial review.
Subjects
- disciplinary action
- judicial review
- penalty order
- service discipline
- proportionality
- inquiry
- special appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1017 of 2026
Ram Krishna
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Shyam Sunder
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mohd. Faizan Ali, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri
Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant and
Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant states
that the issue is covered by our earlier decision in Ram Krishna Vs.
State of U.P. And 4 Others, 2026:AHC:180726-DB, wherein it has been
observed as below:-
"2. We find no occasion to interfere with the order of the learned single
judge dated 20.07.2026 in Ram Krishna Vs. Commissioner Kanpur
Division Kanpur and Others, 2026:AHC:148046.
3. The basic facts are undisputed. While working as Collection Ameen,
against yearly target of Rs.2,50,000/-, the original petitioner/ appellant
recovered less than Rs.1,00,000/-. His explanation that such short
recovery arose occasioned by his suspension from service, does not
inspire confidence as the original petitioner/ appellant remained
suspended for about one month, whereas the target in excess of
Rs.2,50,000/- had been fixed for whole year.
4. Second, the punishment order holding two increments and censure
entry have been awarded after conclusion of a full-fledged domestic
inquiry. No defect in that inquiry is shown as may warrant any
SPLA No. 1017 of 2026
2
interference in exercise of judicial review.
5. Third, in the context of the charge leveled, the punishment awarded is
not shockingly disproportionate as may have prompted the writ Court to
offer any interference.
6. Applying the settled principles, that govern judicial review, specifically
writ petition arising from penalty orders, and considering the fact that
adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the inquiry as
also thereafter before the disciplinary authority and the appeal authority,
we find no error in the order of learned single judge.
7. The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
3. In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 8, 2026
#Vikram/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…