The Allahabad High Court has set aside the penalty of censure and withholding of one salary increment with cumulative effect imposed on a State Tax officer, holding that a charge of not complying with oral directions issued in video conferencing meetings cannot be sustained where neither the dates of those meetings nor their minutes were placed on record. It held that such an order rests on hypothetical charges.

Petitioner was posted as Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (S.I.B.), State Tax, Kanpur Zone-First, Kanpur in October 2024. A charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024 was issued to him under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999, alleging that he had not ensured scanning of 100% e-way bills of vehicles carrying pan masala from manufacturing units in the Kanpur zone as directed in review meetings held through video conferencing, and that the collection target was consequently not achieved.

A second charge alleged breach of Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 on the strength of the first.

In reply, petitioner relied on the circular dated 09.05.2024 of the Commissioner, State Tax, which prescribed 245 scans of e-way bills, and said the mobile squad units under his control had scanned 474 in October 2024, 93.47% above that limit. He submitted that the inquiry report was founded on circular no. 1263 dated 21.11.2024, and that no direction for 100% scanning had been issued before it.

State counsel submitted that oral instructions had been issued on several occasions before 21.11.2024 and were not complied with. Asked whether an oral circular could be issued by the Excise Commissioner at all, he was unable to give a proper reply, and he conceded that the dates of the video conferencing meetings at which the oral instructions were allegedly issued find no mention either in the inquiry report or in the impugned order.

The Court observed that the minutes of those meetings were never supplied to the petitioner, which showed that the circular issued to him was oral, and that the impugned order carried only general allegations.

“Even the dates are also not mentioned, in the impugned order only general allegations have been leveled.”

It noted the observation of the Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian and others Vs. Union of India and others that an oral order should not be issued in normal circumstances, and that where an oral direction becomes unavoidable, it should be recorded and confirmed in writing at the earliest.

Justice Rajeev Singh held

“There is no evidence that prior to 21.11.2024, any direction was issued to the petitioner for ensuring 100% scanning of e-way bills of the vehicle transporting the pan masala, Therefore, the impugned order is based on the hypothetical charges.”

Setting aside the punishment order dated 05.03.2026, the inquiry report dated 09.06.2025 and the charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed

“Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., is directed to ensure that in future necessary instructions be issued in writing in place of oral instructions and in case, it is unavoidable, it should be recorded at the earliest.”

A copy of the order was directed to be communicated to the Chief Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister and the Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P.

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 5 others

Click Here To Read/Download Order