Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel

Allahabad High Court delivered a scathing judgment against the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the termination of Raj Pal Singh Dishwar, who was removed from his post as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) in Hathras. The bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Kshitij Shailendra ruled that the petitioner’s dismissal, based on an inquiry report relying on an unverified video, violated fundamental principles of natural justice and was legally unsustainable.

Directing the State Government to reinstate the petitioner within three weeks, the Court held that the termination order, issued by the Joint Secretary, Law Department on May 10, 2024, lacked legal merit and was based on vague and unsubstantiated material.

Court Criticizes Inquiry Report: "No Verification, No Opportunity for Defense"
The petitioner, Raj Pal Singh Dishwar, had been serving as Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) in Hathras when his appointment was abruptly terminated. The State justified its decision by citing an inquiry report dated January 3, 2024, which claimed that the petitioner had made objectionable remarks against Mahatma Gandhi. This report was later forwarded by the District Magistrate, Hathras to the Special Secretary, Law Department on April 18, 2024.

The Court found serious flaws in the inquiry process, noting that the video, which allegedly formed the basis of the termination, was never authenticated. There was no evidence regarding its source, its recording, or how the authorities gained access to it. The Court observed:

"The inquiry committee’s report failed to establish the authenticity of the video relied upon, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to present his defense. The entire action against the petitioner appears to be full of malice."

The Standing Counsel for the State also conceded that the petitioner was not given a chance to present his case before the inquiry committee and that no independent verification of the video was ever conducted.

Court Condemns Malicious Action: "An Unjustified Attempt to Oust the Petitioner"
The Court strongly criticized the State’s arbitrary decision, emphasizing that the petitioner’s termination was carried out with a clear intent to remove him from the panel without legal justification. Declaring the action as "tainted with malice", the Court held:

"It is apparent that in order to oust the petitioner from the panel, some vague material, authenticity whereof was not established even in the inquiry, has been utilized to the detriment of the petitioner."

Holding that there was no substantial evidence to justify the termination, the Court ruled that the order was arbitrary and could not stand in law.

"There being no other material that might justify taking action against the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained."

Final Judgment: "Reinstatement Ordered Within Three Weeks"
After hearing all parties, the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order dated May 10, 2024. The Court directed the State to reinstate the petitioner within three weeks.

"The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated May 10, 2024, passed by the Joint Secretary, Law Department, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of A.D.G.C. (Criminal), Hathras, within a period of three weeks from today."

Significance of the Judgment: "No One Can Be Penalized Without a Fair Hearing"
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling sends a clear message that no government official can be removed arbitrarily or without due process. By striking down a termination order based on an unverified video and a flawed inquiry report, the Court has reinforced the constitutional safeguards of fairness and justice.

Calling attention to the State’s failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself, the judgment sets an important precedent for government employees, ensuring that they cannot be removed based on politically motivated or fabricated allegations.

As the Court reiterated, "termination without verifying evidence is legally unsustainable", and the State cannot justify an arbitrary decision without due process.
 

Date of Decision: 20 January 2025