Lucknow, July 11, 2025 – In a significant interim relief, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the suspension order against Sudama Paswan, a GST officer, who was accused of demanding a bribe through an audio message circulated on social media, among other allegations. The court, presided over by Justice Manish Mathur, granted the stay until the next hearing date, highlighting prima facie concerns over the verification of the audio evidence and the vagueness of some complaints.
The case, registered as Writ – A No. 7467 of 2025, was heard in Court No. 18 of the Allahabad High Court. Paswan, the petitioner, challenged his suspension order dated June 21, 2025, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, Department of Goods and Services Tax, GST, Lucknow, along with two other respondents. Representing the petitioner was advocate Alok Mishra, assisted by Pranjal Shukla. The respondents were represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.), referred to as the learned State Counsel.
Background and Allegations
Sudama Paswan, a GST officer, was placed under suspension based on three primary allegations outlined in the impugned order of June 21, 2025. The first allegation stemmed from an audio message that prima facie indicated Paswan demanding a bribe, which had gone viral on social media platforms. The second allegation involved complaints raised against him during a seminar on May 15, 2025, where various persons reportedly questioned his work ethics. The third allegation pertained to Paswan being found absent from duty during an inspection of his workplace.
The petition sought to quash the suspension, arguing that the order lacked substantiation and procedural fairness.
Arguments Presented in Court
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner, raised pointed objections to each allegation. On the first count, Counsel submitted that there was no mention in the suspension order about whether the audio message available on social media had ever been verified by any expert. He emphasized that in the current era, where voices can be easily replicated and copied using Artificial Intelligence, such verification is crucial to ensure the authenticity of the evidence. Without expert examination, the allegation could not be reliably attributed to the petitioner.
Regarding the second allegation, the counsel argued that it was completely vague, as the nature of the complaints raised during the seminar was not disclosed in the order. This lack of specificity, he contended, made it impossible for the petitioner to adequately respond or defend himself.
The third allegation—of absence from duty during inspection—was outright denied by the petitioner’s counsel, who submitted that it had not been proven and lacked concrete details.
The State Counsel, representing the opposite parties, was present but did not counter the submissions in detail during this hearing, as the court granted time for further instructions.
Legal Issues Involved and Court’s Reasoning
The key legal questions before the court revolved around the validity and procedural propriety of the suspension order. Specifically:
- Verification of Audio Evidence: Was the audio message, which formed the basis of the primary allegation, adequately examined for authenticity, especially given the potential for AI manipulation? The court noted the petitioner’s submission that no such expert verification was mentioned, raising doubts about the reliability of the evidence in an age where AI can replicate voices.
- Vagueness of Complaints: Were the allegations, particularly those from the seminar, sufficiently detailed to allow the petitioner a fair opportunity to respond? The court observed that the second allegation appeared vague since the specific nature of the complaints was not disclosed.
- Denial of Absence Allegation: Did the suspension order adequately address the third allegation of absence from duty, which the petitioner denied? The court acknowledged this denial as part of its prima facie assessment.
Justice Manish Mathur, after hearing both sides, found that the prima facie submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel had force and required further consideration. The court highlighted the need to ascertain whether the alleged audio message on social media was ever examined by experts prior to the passing of the impugned order. To allow the respondents to address these issues, the State Counsel was granted ten days’ time to seek instructions and file a short counter affidavit, particularly focusing on the expert examination of the audio.
Court’s Order and Next Steps
In its order dated July 11, 2025, the court directed that the case be listed as fresh on July 23, 2025. Crucially, until the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned suspension order dated June 21, 2025, shall remain stayed. This interim stay effectively reinstates Paswan pending further hearings.
