Introduction:

In the case of Amar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT – A No. – 9071 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court overturned the dismissal of Amar Singh, an Additional Private Secretary in the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat, who was terminated for allegedly forwarding a WhatsApp message with objectionable remarks about the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The Court ruled the termination as shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the lack of intent and evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Amar Singh contended that the message was forwarded inadvertently to a WhatsApp group he managed, and he promptly took measures to mitigate the situation by deleting the message and asking others to do the same. Additionally, he wrote an apology letter to the Chief Secretary, admitting the mistake. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary inquiry conducted against him failed to prove deliberate misconduct. He claimed the termination violated the principles of natural justice as the formation of a Technical Committee to examine the incident was not by the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. He further emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest that the forwarded message was read, shared further, or caused harm to the Government’s reputation.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The State argued that as a government servant, Amar Singh should have exercised greater caution and diligence while managing group communications. They claimed that the petitioner could have used the “delete for everyone” feature to rectify the error but failed to do so. The respondents relied on the Technical Committee’s findings, which stated that the petitioner forwarded the message and could have deleted it earlier to prevent potential harm. They asserted that forwarding objectionable content was a serious lapse warranting strict disciplinary action, including termination.

Court’s Findings and Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court critically analyzed the disciplinary process, including the Inquiry Report and the role of the Technical Committee. Justice Alok Mathur observed that the Inquiry Report explicitly stated that the charges against the petitioner were not proven, except for his admission of forwarding the message. The Court noted that the petitioner’s admission was contextualized as an honest mistake, not an intentional act to harm the Government’s reputation. The Court emphasized that misconduct under service rules requires deliberate intent and that accidental forwarding of the message did not meet this threshold.

The Court further scrutinized the Technical Committee’s findings, holding that its formation violated the procedural rules under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The Technical Inquiry was conducted without informing the petitioner, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. The Court highlighted that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed, and any deviation renders the administrative action void.

The Court also found no evidence to suggest that the forwarded message was read by others or caused any reputational harm to the Government. It observed that the disciplinary authority’s conclusion of misconduct was speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The punishment of termination was deemed shockingly disproportionate to the petitioner’s unintentional act. The Court held that a more appropriate response would have been a warning or an adverse entry in the service record.

In its ruling, the Court quashed the termination order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The judgment underscored the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions and the importance of adhering to procedural fairness.