Allahabad HC Upholds Quashing of Punishment Imposed on UP Officer Over Facebook Post on Tiranga Rally

The Lucknow Bench found that disciplinary authorities never verified the officer's actual Facebook post and that her comment on Dr. Ambedkar's absence from a private rally did not amount to Government criticism.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, on 29 May 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the quashing of a punishment order against Rashmi, a Deputy Director in the Economic and Statistics Division. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal had, by its order dated 8 December 2025, set aside the punishment of permanent withholding of two increments and a censure that had been imposed on her on 6 November 2019. The bench agreed with the Tribunal, holding that the disciplinary authorities had proceeded entirely on a newspaper clipping without ever examining the officer's original Facebook post, and that the comment in question did not disclose any misconduct under the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Rashmi was initially appointed in July 1992 as an Economic and Statistics Officer and was promoted to Deputy Director (Economic and Statistics Division) in November 2012. During her posting in the Saharanpur Division, she made a Facebook post that was subsequently commented upon and published in Dainik Jagran on 4 February 2018 under the heading “Now dispute over woman officer's post.”

On the basis of that newspaper publication, a chargesheet was issued to her on 28 February 2018. The charge was that her post amounted to a criticism of the Government, constituting misconduct under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956. She was asked to respond within seven days.

Rashmi submitted a detailed reply on 21 March 2018. She stated that the newspaper had not correctly reproduced her Facebook post, that her comment was not directed at the Government and did not affect law and order, and that if her words had been misrepresented, the responsibility lay with the newspaper. The enquiry officer, however, submitted his report on 12 April 2018 finding the charge proved. After she submitted further comments on 7 June 2018 and a supplementary representation on 20 August 2018, the disciplinary authority — with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission, Prayagraj — passed the punishment order on 6 November 2019.

Rashmi made a representation to the State Government against that order. While that representation was pending, she filed Claim Petition No. 338 of 2021 before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition and quashed the punishment order by its judgment dated 8 December 2025. The State then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

The Legal Issue: Was the Facebook Comment Government Criticism Under Rule 7?

Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 prohibits government servants from making statements that amount to criticism of the Government. The entire disciplinary action rested on whether Rashmi's Facebook post crossed that line.

The post, as reported in Dainik Jagran, referred to a Tiranga rally taken out on the streets of Saharanpur on the occasion of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti. The publication stated that in the rally, Dr. Ambedkar was missing and had probably been overtaken by the “Bhagwa Rang.” The authorities treated this as a criticism of the Government and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

Rashmi's consistent defence was that the newspaper had not accurately reproduced what she had written, and that even the published version did not constitute a comment on the Government or its policies.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench examined the chargesheet dated 28 February 2018 and found that only a single charge had been levelled, based entirely on the Dainik Jagran clipping. The authorities had not placed the original Facebook post on record at any stage of the enquiry.

Once Rashmi had specifically stated that the newspaper had misrepresented her comments, the bench held it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer to verify the actual Facebook post before proceeding. That step was never taken. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the charge proved without addressing the reply she had submitted.

On the substance of the comment itself, the bench found that Rashmi had merely remarked on the absence of Dr. Ambedkar from the rally. The bench observed that the rally in question — the Tiranga Rally — was a private rally with no affiliation or connection to the Government or any of its agencies. There was no reference to the Government or to any Government policy in the comment. The bench said it failed to see how the comment could amount to criticising the Government.

The bench approved the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in J. Ashoka v. Krishi Vigyan University, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 609, which holds that reasons must disclose a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached, and that this applies to both administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.

Applying that standard, the bench found that the enquiry officer had not considered Rashmi's reply at all, and the disciplinary authority had similarly not addressed any of the aspects she had raised in her defence. The punishment order was therefore passed without application of mind, and the comment itself did not disclose the commission of any misconduct under the Rules, 1956.

The bench found no infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment dated 8 December 2025.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ-A No. 5676 of 2026 on 29 May 2026, finding it devoid of merits. The Tribunal's order dated 8 December 2025 quashing the punishment of permanent withholding of two increments and censure imposed on Rashmi by the order dated 6 November 2019 stands.