Lucknow. The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has observed that it will examine whether there is any contradiction between the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 and the Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891: (2025) 2 UPLBEC 883, on the one hand, and the earlier Supreme Court decision in Union of India and others v. Shravan Kumar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2032, on the other, including whether the aspect of any judgment being per incuriam arises for consideration, while hearing a writ petition challenging a major penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings against a government servant.
While granting interim protection, A Single Bench of Justice Manish Mathur recorded;
“6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the aspect as to whether judgments rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi(supra) as well as State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh(supra) are contrary to Union of India and others v. Sharvan Kumar(supra) and their applicability in the present facts and circumstances would require consideration particularly whether there is any contradiction between the same and the aspect of any judgment being per incurium. “
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13 November 2025, by which a major penalty of reversion to the basic pay scale along with a censure entry was imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. Earlier, in a separate writ petition, the High Court had directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the enquiry within a fixed time period. The proceedings were not concluded within the stipulated time, and an application seeking extension of time was later rejected.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (2013 SCC OnLine All 14267) and the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 891).
It was submitted that in Ram Prakash Singh, the Supreme Court held that continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond a court- or tribunal-stipulated time could be interdicted where no bona fide attempt is made to seek extension of time, and that where a court fixes time with a rider that the enquiry would lapse on default, the disciplinary authority would cease to have jurisdiction.
The State, opposing the petition, relied upon the earlier Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Shravan Kumar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 2032). In that case, the Supreme Court observed that fixing a time period for completing disciplinary proceedings is generally procedural, and unless the order expressly provides for consequences of default, expiry of the stipulated time by itself does not render the proceedings a nullity, as courts and tribunals retain the power to extend time.
The High Court further considered the petitioner’s allegation of violation of principles of natural justice and, in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, rejected the State’s objection on maintainability based on the availability of an alternative remedy. The Court reiterated that there is no absolute bar on entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where issues of natural justice are raised.
Accordingly, the Court fixed the matter for 21 January 2026 for next hearing by directing
“Until further orders of this Court, operation of impugned order dated 13.11.2025 shall remain stayed.”
Senior Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, assisted by Advocate Utsav Misra, appeared for the petitioner. The respondent State was represented by Additional Advocate General S.M. Singh Royekwar, assisted by Advocate Sandeep Sharma.
Case Title: Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others