The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed a suspension order against an employee of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department, holding that a disciplinary authority must apply its mind and record prima facie satisfaction regarding the genuineness of evidence, such as an audio clip, before suspending an employee. The judgment was delivered by the Lucknow bench in a writ petition challenging the suspension which was based solely on a complaint alleging a bribe demand heard in an audio recording.
The court, presided over by Justice Manish Mathur, allowed the writ petition filed by Indra Pratap Singh, setting aside the suspension order dated July 17, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Indra Pratap Singh, challenged his suspension order, which was issued in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. The suspension was initiated based on a complaint made by a partner in a firm, pertaining to allegations from the years 2016-2017. The central allegation was that an audio clip featured the petitioner demanding a bribe.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Mishra and Mr. Devanand Pandey, argued that the impugned order was passed without any application of mind by the disciplinary authority. They contended that no effort was made to determine the veracity or genuineness of the alleged audio clip before placing the petitioner under suspension. It was also submitted that the allegations were stale.
The learned State Counsel, representing the State of U.P. and the GST department, submitted written instructions dated August 4, 2025. The counsel acknowledged that the instructions did not specifically indicate that any preliminary inquiry had taken place prior to the issuance of the suspension order. However, he argued that the suspension was necessary given the serious nature of the allegations and that the complaint was duly supported by an affidavit.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
After considering the submissions from both parties and perusing the material on record, Justice Manish Mathur observed that the facts were largely admitted. The court noted that the impugned order itself made it evident that the petitioner was suspended “only on the ground of complaint having been filed pertaining to bribe being allegedly sought by him as indicated in an audio clip.”
The court found a critical lapse in the disciplinary authority’s process, stating, “The order does not indicate any efforts made by disciplinary authority to ascertain genuineness of the aforesaid audio clip.”
To elaborate on the legal principle, the court referred to a Division Bench judgment of the same court in the case of Arvind Kumar Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2007(4) AWC 4163 All, which in turn placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, MANU/SC/0475/1994.
Citing the precedent set by these judgments, the court emphasized that a disciplinary authority is required to apply its mind and record a prima facie satisfaction regarding the guilt of a delinquent employee before passing a suspension order. Justice Mathur stated, “it is evident that disciplinary authority is not automatically required to suspend an employee on the basis of any complaint or allegation levelled against him and he is necessarily required to apply his mind to the allegations levelled and to record prima satisfaction with regard to complicity of the delinquent employee.”
Applying this principle to the present case, the court concluded that the disciplinary authority had failed to undertake this necessary step. The judgment reads, “In the present facts, no such efforts appear to have been made by the disciplinary authority prior to issuance of impugned suspension order which would be necessary in view of the fact that sole allegation levelled against petitioner is based on an audio clip, the genuineness of which is yet to be tested.”
Final Decision
Concluding that the suspension order was unsustainable in law, the court quashed the order dated July 17, 2025, by issuing a writ of certiorari.
However, the court granted liberty to the disciplinary authority “to pass order afresh only after recording prima facie satisfaction with regard to genuineness of the audio clip.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed at the admission stage itself, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
