VINOD KUMAR DWIVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                        WRIT - A No. - 12471 of 2026

Vinod Kumar Dwivedi
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Dharmendra Kumar, Shailendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
                   HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
                   HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

1. On moving the writ petition, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, learned advocate
appearing for petitioner had submitted, the disciplinary proceeding on
enquiry report, punishment, appellate and revisional orders were all
challenged by him in the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition
on judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2026. The Tribunal acted illegally
and with material irregularity. He seeks interference.

2. Paragraph 12 from the petition is reproduced below.

     "12. That in suspension order dated 15.02.2019 the allegations leveled
     against the petitioner are that in the year 2018 while the petitioner was
     posted as Circle Officer, Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, a first information
     report in case crime no.158 of 2018 under section 307/302 1.P.C. and 7
     Criminal Law Amendment Act has been registered against one Satish alia
     Naga, Nishat son of Dwarika, Jhunjhun alias Ajit Yadav, resident of
     Madhopura, Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur in which during preliminary
     inquiry it is found that while checking the call Details Report of
     suspicious persons, petitioner found talking through his mobile number
     with Smt. Arti Gupta on her mobile number and due to which confidential
     information and process has been leaked out and therefore petitioner
     found guilty of breach of confidential."

Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appears for State. Department has made English translation of impugned
judgment and order. We appreciate the work done.

3. Mr. Kumar submits, the incident of crime was on 13th August, 2018. His
                                                              WRIA No. 12471 of 2026
                                   2


client was leading the investigation, holding post of Circle Officer. Within a
few days, on 28th August, 2018 under leadership of his client, the accused
was arrested. In the circumstances, the punishment of censure and
withholding of three annual increments coupled with subsequent order of
denying payment of salary in the period of suspension between 15th
February, 2019 and 2nd June, 2020 were and are all bad. The Tribunal
committed illegality in rejecting/dismissing his client's claim petition. There
be interference.

4. Mrs. Tyagi submits, petitioner was given every opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry. Finding of guilt was returned on evidence of call
records. Petitioner had indulged in personal calls with the lady. There was
breach of confidentiality in on going investigation. It was a serious matter.
Further opportunity was given and the punishment order duly made. Still
further opportunity was given for decision on withholding suspension period
pay as provided under rule 54(B) in the Financial Hand Book. There should
not be interference and the writ petition, dismissed.

5. Paragraph 18 from the petition is reproduced below.

     "18. That ultimately on 28.08.2018 to the best efforts of the petitioner the
     main accused was arrested and thereafter the work of the petitioner being
     over, the petitioner did not and did not have any conversation with Smt.
     Arti Gupta and the petitioner's work investigation like arrest was over."

State has filed counter. Paragraph 10 from it is reproduced below.

     "10. That, the contents of Paragraph Nos.15 to 21 of the writ petition are
     not admitted, hence denied. In reply, it is submitted that during the
     departmental proceeding, the prosecution witnesses proved that the
     petitioner talked with the accused and leaked the confidential information
     with them."

6. Petitioner's express defence against the charge was, he contacted the lady
to obtain information for purpose of arresting the accused. We see from
aforesaid, the arrest followed soon after the crime. Petitioner's specific
statement that there was no further conversation, has not been denied. We
need look no further.

7. Impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2026 alongwith
punishment order dated 2nd June, 2020 and the withholding of suspension
period pay order dated 24th February, 2021 are all set aside and quashed.
                                                                                           WRIA No. 12471 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    Petitioner is entitled to be given the consequent relief. He will communicate
                                    certified copy of this order to respondent no.1 for compliance and giving
                                    effect within four weeks therefrom.

                                    8. The writ petition is disposed of.

                                    September 28, 2026
                                    VS
                                                                                            (Arindam Sinha,J.)



                                                                                          (Satya Veer Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad