Allahabad HC Grants Relief to UP Officer Punished for Facebook Post on Dr. Ambedkar Tiranga Rally [Read Order]

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on May 29, 2026, dismissed the State of Uttar Pradesh’s writ petition challenging a UP Public Service Tribunal order that had quashed the punishment imposed on a senior government officer for a Facebook post commenting on a Tiranga rally held on the occasion of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti, holding that the comment did not amount to criticism of the Government and that the disciplinary enquiry had been conducted without any application of mind [State of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Planning Department, Lucknow v. Rashmi, Writ-A No. 5676 of 2026].

A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held that the enquiry officer had not even considered the respondent’s reply before submitting the enquiry report, and that the disciplinary authority had proceeded entirely on the basis of a newspaper article without verifying the actual Facebook post, despite the respondent having specifically disassociated herself from the newspaper’s representation of her comments.

Background

The respondent, Rashmi, was initially appointed as an Economic and Statistics Officer in July 1992 and was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Economic and Statistics Division) in November 2012. During her tenure in the Saharanpur Division, she made a Facebook post commenting on a Tiranga rally held on the occasion of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti, observing that Dr. Ambedkar appeared to be absent from the rally and had probably been overtaken by the “Bhagwa Rang.” The post was reported on and published in the local daily Dainik Jagran on February 4, 2018, under the heading “Now dispute over woman officer’s post.”

On the basis of this newspaper publication, a chargesheet was issued to the respondent on February 28, 2018, alleging that the post amounted to criticism of the Government in violation of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1956. The respondent submitted a detailed reply on March 21, 2018, stating that the newspaper had not correctly depicted her Facebook post, that the comment was not directed at the Government or its policies, and that the Tiranga rally in question was a private rally with no affiliation to the Government or any of its agencies.

Despite this reply, the enquiry officer submitted a report on April 12, 2018, finding the charge proved. The respondent submitted comments on the enquiry report and a supplementary representation. By a punishment order dated November 6, 2019, passed after concurrence from the Public Service Commission, Prayagraj, she was awarded permanent withholding of two increments along with a censure. The respondent filed a claim petition before the UP Public Service Tribunal, which, by order dated December 8, 2025, quashed the punishment. The State challenged this order before the High Court.

Court’s Findings

The Court held that the entire disciplinary proceeding had been founded on a newspaper clipping rather than the respondent’s actual Facebook post. Once the respondent had clearly disassociated herself from the newspaper’s representation of her comments, it was incumbent upon the enquiry authorities to verify the original Facebook post before proceeding further. The authorities had failed to do so.

On the substance of the comment, the Court held that the respondent had merely observed that Dr. Ambedkar was absent from the rally. There was no reference to the Government or any of its policies, and the Tiranga rally was a private rally with no governmental affiliation. The Court held that it could not see how such a comment amounted to criticizing the Government within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1956.

The Court further held that the enquiry officer had not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the respondent and that the disciplinary authority had similarly failed to consider the aspects raised by the respondent in her defence. The punishment order had therefore been passed without application of mind, independently of the question of whether the comment constituted misconduct at all.

The Court approved the Tribunal’s reliance on J. Ashoka v. Krishi Vigyan University, which held that reasons must disclose a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached, and that reasons are the links between the material on which conclusions are based and the actual conclusions drawn.

Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, the Court dismissed the State’s petition.

Case Details

• Case Title: State of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Planning Department, Lucknow v. Rashmi
• Case Number: Writ-A No. 5676 of 2026
• Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
• Bench: Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai
• Date of Order: May 29, 2026

Appearances:

• For Petitioner (State of U.P.): Anand Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel
• For Respondent: C.S.C. (subject to verification from the order)

[Read Order]