Allahabad High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Court Employee Who Manipulated Convict’s Age In Judicial Record
Altering a life convict’s age from 19 to 38 years in a judicial record, so that he could claim release under a scheme for prisoners above 60, is a serious misconduct that deserves no sympathy, the Allahabad High Court has held in upholding the dismissal of court employee Seema Sharma.
Prayagraj: Manipulating a convict’s age in the judicial record is “direct interference with the administration of justice”, the Allahabad High Court has held while dismissing a writ petition by a former Assistant Record Keeper of the Muzaffarnagar judgeship against her dismissal from service [Smt. Seema Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General and Others].
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta delivered the judgment on November 2, 2026 in Writ-A No. 71889 of 2010. The petition challenged the Administrative Judge’s order of October 4, 2010, passed as appellate authority, which raised the punishment imposed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, from stoppage of one increment for two years to dismissal from service.
Who held the record when the age changed
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta noted that between July 6, 2000 and September 13, 2000, when the manipulation took place, the petitioner was undisputedly in charge of the record and was not on leave, and that she had herself issued the certificate showing the age as 38. The Court observed that the District Judge had taken “very lenient view”, while the appellate authority acted on the seriousness of the proved charges.
On the scope of review under Article 226, the Court held:
“…once the aforesaid findings of fact are there, whereby the petitioner has been found guilty of manipulation, this Court find that the said act of manipulation in the age in the judicial record, is a serious misconduct and which do not attract any sympathy because such manipulation in the judicial record is direct interference with the administration of justice and no lenient view could be taken for the said misconduct.”
The Court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition.
The scheme, the record and the charge
The petitioner joined the Muzaffarnagar judgeship as a paid apprentice on September 13, 1978, was regularised as a Junior Clerk in 1983 and promoted as Assistant Record Keeper in 1985. The charge concerned the record of a 1977 sessions trial, in which a convict, Juber, had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in November 1978.
In January 2000, the State Government introduced a scheme for the release of prisoners who had served more than three years and were above 60 years of age. Eligibility turned on the age recorded in the prisoner’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The original record gave the convict’s age as 19 years; in answer to a questionnaire dated September 13, 2000, it appeared as 38 years, which would have made him over 60 by then.
A departmental charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner had interpolated the age in the record and issued an incorrect certificate. The inquiry officer examined nine witnesses, found her guilty and concluded that she had either made the change herself or got it done through someone else.
From increment cut to dismissal
The District Judge, Muzaffarnagar had imposed only the stoppage of one increment for two years under Rule 4(d) of the U.P. Subordinate Court Staff Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1976. On the petitioner’s appeal, the Administrative Judge regarded the charges as serious, issued a show-cause notice proposing enhancement and, after considering her reply, dismissed her from service while rejecting the appeal.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that others also had access to the record, that she was on leave on certain dates, that the file had moved between sections and courts, and that no handwriting expert’s opinion had been taken to show that she alone made the change.
Why the judgment matters
Court records decide liberty, sentences and eligibility for release. The ruling treats tampering with them by court staff as misconduct that strikes at the justice system itself, and confirms that an appellate authority under the subordinate court staff rules can enhance a lenient penalty to dismissal after notice. It also restates that a writ court will not reappraise findings of fact in departmental proceedings where the employee’s custody of the record and issuance of the false certificate are established.
Case Title: Smt. Seema Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General and Others [Writ-A No. 71889 of 2010]
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:227468
Bench: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Santosh Kumar Srivastava, holding brief of Advocate Pradeep Kumar Sharma
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Advocate Pooja Agrawal
For Respondent No. 5: Advocate Anand Mani Tripathi
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.