Misconduct upheld, removal undone: the Allahabad High Court has found the removal of a court employee over a single incident outside working hours, after more than two decades of service, shockingly disproportionate, and has set aside the penalty while leaving the findings of misconduct undisturbed.
Lucknow: Setting aside the removal from service of a Deputy Nazir of a subordinate court in Unnao over an off-duty incident in 1994, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held the penalty shockingly disproportionate even though the charges of misconduct were upheld, and has granted continuity of service, family pension and 25 per cent back wages to his legal heirs [Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. District Judge Unnao].
Justice Garima Prashad partly allowed Writ-A No. 1959 of 2000, which was pending for more than 26 years. The petitioner, Virendra Kumar Srivastava, died on April 7, 2006 and his legal heirs were substituted. Judgment was reserved on July 22, 2026 and delivered on October 12, 2026.
Punishment out of proportion
On the penalty, the Court noted that the remaining charges arose from one occurrence outside ordinary working hours, that no physical injury, loss to the establishment or criminal conviction was shown, that the petitioner had served since 1977, and that no earlier adverse record was placed before it. Discipline and restraint are expected of every court employee, it said, and the proved conduct deserved punishment, but it held:
“Removal, however, ended the petitioner’s service and pensionary protection after more than two decades of service. In these facts, removal is unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved.”
A night in November 1994
The petitioner joined a Class IV post in 1977 and, after promotion, was working as Deputy Nazir in the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purwa, Unnao. The disciplinary case arose from an incident said to have occurred at about 9 pm on November 23, 1994 near the residence of the then Munsif Magistrate. After a preliminary inquiry, he was suspended on February 22, 1997 and served with four charges on July 4, 1997. The charges alleged that he abused a Home Guard who stopped him from knocking at the Munsif Magistrate’s door, that he went to the judicial officer’s residence in an intoxicated and half-naked condition and abused him, that he returned and created a disturbance after being taken away, and that police apprehended him near the residence and detained him for the night under Section 34 of the Police Act.
He denied the charges and called the proceedings retaliatory.
Six witnesses were examined in the departmental inquiry. By a report dated October 29, 1998 the inquiry officer held charge no. 1 (the allegation concerning the Home Guard) not proved and charges 2, 3 and 4 proved, and proposed removal. The District Judge removed him from service on December 21, 1998, and the Inspecting Judge rejected his appeal under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976 on December 1, 1999.
How far a writ court can look
The Court framed three questions: whether the inquiry and the findings on charges 2, 3 and 4 suffered from any procedural or jurisdictional error, whether the disciplinary and appellate orders showed due application of mind, and whether removal was excessive. Drawing on State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, it recalled that judicial review looks at the decision-making process and does not make the writ court a second departmental appellate authority.
From State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh it noted that the Evidence Act does not strictly govern a departmental inquiry. Rule 5 of the 1976 Rules requires definite charges and a fair opportunity of defence, and Rule 7(4) requires the appellate authority to consider whether the facts are established, whether they justify action and whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate.
The inquiry stands, the appeal order does not
The Court found that the prescribed procedure was followed, the petitioner cross-examined the witnesses, and the findings on charges 2, 3 and 4 were supported by oral evidence and by his own admission of being present in the area. The absence of the medical officer and the police officer was not fatal, though the medical and police papers could not be considered without them. The failure of charge no. 1 did not defeat the others, since the charges addressed distinct acts. The disciplinary order showed application of mind. The appellate order, however, did not:
“Rule 7(4) required the appellate authority to examine the penalty independently. Its bare conclusion that the misconduct was gross did not meet that requirement.”
Relief moulded, not remitted
Ordinarily the matter would have gone back to the authorities. Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, S.R. Tewari v. Union of India and Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, the Court held this an exceptional case for moulding relief, because more than three decades had passed and the petitioner had died. It set aside the removal order of December 21, 1998 and the appellate order of December 1, 1999 to the extent of the penalty, leaving the findings of misconduct undisturbed.
The petitioner is to be treated as having continued in service from December 21, 1998 until his death on April 7, 2006 for continuity of service, pay fixation, terminal benefits and pension, and his legal heirs get 25 per cent of the back wages for that period.
The petitioner’s widow is to be paid family pension from April 7, 2006 with entire arrears, without reduction for the back-wage restriction, and all other terminal and death-cum-retirement benefits are to be released on the basis of notional continuity. The exercise must be completed within three months of production of a certified copy. The prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected given the lapse of time, and there was no order as to costs.
Why the judgment matters
Service cases often merge two questions that this judgment keeps apart: whether misconduct is proved, where the writ court defers to a fair inquiry, and whether the penalty fits it, where the court can step in. It also reminds appellate authorities that a one-line endorsement of the punishment does not satisfy a rule requiring independent examination of the penalty.
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. District Judge Unnao
Case Number: Writ-A No. 1959 of 2000
Bench: Justice Garima Prashad, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Judgment: October 12, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harsh Tripathi, for the petitioner; Mr. Shishir Jain, Advocate, for the High Court and the District Court