The Allahabad High Court has set aside disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on Sanjay Kumar Pathak, a State Tax Department officer, after finding that the alleged oral instructions requiring 100% scanning of e-way bills were not properly recorded or supported by the inquiry material.
Justice Rajeev Singh delivered the judgment on September 1, 2026, in Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, State Tax Department, Lucknow and Others, Writ-A No. 2932 of 2026.
Background
Pathak was posted as Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (S.I.B.), State Tax, Kanpur Zone-I, in October 2024. A departmental charge-sheet was issued to him on November 14, 2024.
The first charge alleged that directions had been given during video-conferencing review meetings to ensure 100% scanning of e-way bills of vehicles carrying pan masala from manufacturing units in the Kanpur zone. According to the department, Pathak failed to ensure compliance, which was linked to the revenue collection target.
The second charge alleged violation of Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956.
Pathak disputed the allegations. He relied on a May 9, 2024 circular which prescribed a target of 245 e-way bill scans. He stated that the mobile squad units under his supervision had scanned 474 vehicles in October 2024, exceeding the prescribed target by 93.47%.
An inquiry officer nevertheless found the charge proved, principally on the basis that earlier video-conferencing meetings had allegedly contained instructions for 100% scanning.
During the hearing, the High Court specifically questioned the State regarding the alleged oral instructions. The State counsel could not provide the dates of the video conferences in which the instructions were supposedly issued.
The court also noted that neither the inquiry report nor the punishment order contained the dates or minutes of those meetings.
The court found this significant because the May 9, 2024 circular had prescribed 245 scans, whereas 474 vehicles were actually scanned in October. The alleged requirement of 100% scanning was not supported by any recorded meeting minutes supplied to the petitioner.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in T.S.R. Subramanian and Others v. Union of India and Others, the High Court reiterated the importance of recording oral directions.
The court observed:
"Where an oral direction becomes unavoidable, it should be recorded and confirmed in writing at the earliest and oral order should not be issued in normal circumstance. But in case it is issued, where an oral direction becomes unavoidable, it should be recorded and confirmed in writing at the earliest."
The High Court further noted that after the November 21, 2024 circular was issued, Pathak had taken steps to ensure 100% scanning by deploying all seven mobile squad units at the gates of pan masala manufacturing units. However, there was no evidence establishing that such a direction had been issued before that circular.
Justice Rajeev Singh held that the punishment order was based on charges that were not adequately supported by the record. The court accordingly set aside the punishment order dated March 5, 2026, the inquiry report dated June 9, 2025, and the charge-sheet dated November 14, 2024.
The writ petition was allowed. The Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh was also directed to ensure that necessary instructions are issued in writing in future and that, where oral instructions are unavoidable, they are recorded at the earliest.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, State Tax Department, Lucknow and Others
Case Number: Writ-A No. 2932 of 2026
Judge: Justice Rajeev Singh
Decision Date: September 1, 2026
