In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed the dismissal of Amar Singh, a former Additional Private Secretary in the Uttar Pradesh State Secretariat, for inadvertently forwarding a WhatsApp message criticizing Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Deputy Chief Minister Dinesh Sharma. The court deemed the punishment disproportionate and procedurally flawed, directing Singh’s reinstatement with continuity of service.
Background
The case (Writ – A No. 9071 of 2024, Amar Singh v. State of UP) stemmed from a 2018 incident where Amar Singh, the administrator of a WhatsApp group, forwarded an objectionable message critical of the government’s policies on caste-based appointments in Gorakhpur University. Singh maintained that the message was forwarded unintentionally while attempting to delete it.
Upon realizing his mistake, Singh promptly requested group members to delete the message and voluntarily expressed regret to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. Despite his actions to mitigate the error, a departmental inquiry was initiated, and Singh was ultimately dismissed on September 7, 2020, for alleged misconduct under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1956.
Legal Issues
The case raised two key legal questions:
1. Procedural Fairness: Whether the inquiry conducted by the Technical Committee adhered to the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
2. Proportionality of Punishment: Whether termination was justified for an unintentional act without evidence of deliberate misconduct or harm.
Court’s Observations
Justice Alok Mathur identified significant procedural lapses in the disciplinary process:
1. Violation of Natural Justice: The Technical Committee’s inquiry was conducted without informing Singh or providing him the opportunity to defend himself. The court held that this violated Rule 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, which mandates a structured and transparent inquiry process.
2. Absence of Evidence: The court noted that the State failed to produce evidence that the forwarded message was read or circulated within the WhatsApp group. The disciplinary authority relied solely on Singh’s admission, which was insufficient to substantiate deliberate misconduct.
3. Disproportionate Punishment: The court emphasized the principle of proportionality, observing that dismissal for an inadvertent act was “shockingly disproportionate” and did not align with established standards of fairness. The judgment highlighted that negligence or an honest mistake does not constitute serious misconduct warranting the maximum penalty.
Quoting established precedents, the court remarked, “The imposition of punishment must correspond to the gravity of the proven misconduct. When the offense is minor or unintentional, excessive penalties violate principles of fairness.”
Decision
The Allahabad High Court quashed the dismissal order and directed Singh’s reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the court denied back wages for the intervening period, balancing the interests of both parties. It also emphasized the need for disciplinary authorities to adhere strictly to procedural safeguards and proportionality in administrative decisions.
