Allahabad High Court
SHRIOM GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The restraint imposed by the show‑cause notice on the petitioner’s duties is unsustainable and is quashed.
Summary
Shriom Gupta, a driver employed by the Uttar Pradesh State Transport Corporation, suffered a spinal cord ailment and was placed on light duties since July 2024. On 11 March 2026, he received a show‑cause notice directing him to submit medical documents and simultaneously restraining him from performing any official duties. Gupta contended that the restraint was arbitrary and beyond the authority's jurisdiction, while the respondents argued that the notice was a legitimate step pending medical proof. The Court examined whether a show‑cause notice can lawfully prohibit an employee from working without a proper adjudicatory order. It held that the restraint was ultra vires, as a notice merely invites a reply and cannot by itself deprive the employee of his duties. Consequently, the Court quashed the portion of the notice that barred Gupta from discharging his duties, while allowing the authority to consider his reply and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether a show‑cause notice can lawfully restrain an employee from performing duties pending submission of medical evidence.
- Whether the authority exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing such restraint without a proper order.
Subjects
- administrative law
- service law
- show cause notice
- restraint of duties
- procedural fairness
- employee rights
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6772 of 2026
Shriom Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Keshav Kumar Srivastava, Saurav
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Yashwant Singh
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 11.03.2026,
whereby he has been directed to furnish relevant medical documents and,
simultaneously, he has been restrained from discharging his official
duties.
2. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Driver. Owing to a spinal cord ailment, the petitioner is unable to
discharge his duties as a Driver. Consequent thereto, he has been
assigned light duty since July 2024. However, all of a sudden, the
impugned show cause notice dated 11.03.2026 has been issued to him
requiring submission of medical reports/documents and restraining him
from discharging his official duties. It has been submitted that the latter
part of the show cause notice, whereby the petitioner has been restrained
from discharging his duties, is arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of
law.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
No. 2 to 5 (UPSRTC) has contended that the spinal cord ailment of the
petitioner is curable and that for the last one year and eight months, he has
been placed for discharging light duties. Despite issuance of the show
cause notice, petitioner has failed to furnish the relevant medical
certificates and other documents to establish his medical condition
prevents him from discharging his duties as a Driver; therefore, an
observation has been made, in the impugned show cause notice,
WRIA No. 6772 of 2026
2
restraining the petitioner from discharging his duties until submission of
the requisite medical certificate.
4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it transpires that the
petitioner has been served with the show cause notice requiring him to
furnish the relevant medical documents indicating his present medical
status/condition, inasmuch as he has been assigned light duties instead of
discharging duties on the post of Driver for which he was originally
appointed. The petitioner has already submitted his reply dated
12.03.2026 (Annexure No. 7). However, till date, according to the
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no final
decision has been taken by the authority concerned in the aforesaid
matter.
5. In my considered opinion, the authority concerned exceeded its
jurisdiction in restraining the petitioner from discharging his duties
pending submission of the medical reports. A show cause notice is
intended only for inviting an objection/reply from the noticee. However,
any observation made by the authority concerned restraining an employee
from discharging his duties, without passing a proper order in accordance
with law, causes serious prejudice to the employee, which is not
sustainable under the law. Therefore, the observation made by the
Assistant Regional Manager (respondent No. 4) in the impugned show
cause notice restraining the petitioner from discharging his official duty,
is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.
6. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The
show cause notice dated 11.03.2026 issued by the respondent No. 4,
insofar as it restrains the petitioner from discharging his official duty is
hereby quashed. However, the authorities concerned shall be at liberty to
proceed in the matter and take an appropriate decision in the light of the
show cause notice and the reply submitted by the present petitioner to the
said show cause notice, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
May 6, 2026
vinay
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…