The Allahabad High Court has declared the Uttar Pradesh Government's decision to terminate a Standing Counsel's contract as "illegal" and "arbitrary", offering strong words against the administrative action taken solely on the basis of a District Magistrate's complaint.
Read Also: Once Goods Are Verified in MOV-04, Revenue Can't Shift Its Stand Later: Allahabad High Court
The case arose after the District Magistrate (DM) of Hardoi, Mangla Prasad Singh, was summoned by the Court in October last year. The summons came when the DM’s mobile phone was found switched off during a hearing concerning the renewal of an explosive license. Since the Standing Counsel (petitioner) couldn’t reach the DM due to the phone being off, the Court called the DM to appear personally.
Highlighting the issue, the Court had remarked:
"It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the head of the District is functioning with his mobile phone being switched off... It is not understood under what circumstances the said mobile phone has been switched off..."
Read Also: JEE Main Re-Exam Denied: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea Citing Traffic Jam Delay
Following this event, the DM lodged a complaint to the state government, alleging that the Standing Counsel did not attempt to contact him and had misinformed the Court, resulting in public embarrassment for him.
Based solely on the DM's complaint, the State Government terminated the Standing Counsel’s empanelment in November, without offering him a chance to explain or respond.
Challenging this move, the Standing Counsel approached the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the termination was unjustified and made without proper procedure. He stressed that the government relied only on the DM’s letter and did not provide any opportunity of hearing, violating basic principles of natural justice.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Slams Habit of Seeking Adjournments: Calls Litigants’ Role in Delays a “Menace”
In defense, the government argued that hiring or removing a Law Officer is within its discretion and the High Court has limited scope to interfere. They also pointed to call records that supposedly showed no calls from the petitioner to the DM on the relevant day.
However, the Court dismissed this argument, accepting the petitioner’s claim that:
"Call details issued by operators do not show calls made when the phone is switched off."
This explanation remained unrefuted by the State’s counsel.
The Court further observed that the Standing Counsel was merely trying to carry out the Court's instructions and was also fulfilling his duties as an officer of the Court. It strongly disapproved of the DM’s reaction and the resulting termination.
"Merely because the District Magistrate did not pick up the phone, or it was switched off, and this Court was dutifully informed, cannot be a ground for annoyance or cancellation of the Standing Counsel’s contract," the Court stated.
The judge also criticized the lack of transparency and fairness in the enquiry report used to justify the termination, calling it “malafide”. Additionally, the show cause notice issued earlier lacked specifics, with no proposed action or clear incident being mentioned.
In conclusion, Justice Alok Mathur allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order issued by the Special Secretary and Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
“There was no justification for depriving the petitioner of duties for over 8 months due to the renewal issue which formed the basis of the writ petition,” the Court concluded.
The judgment reaffirms the Court’s stand on procedural fairness, reinforcing that administrative decisions must not stem from personal annoyance, especially when involving officers of the Court.
Case title - Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And Legal Remembrance Lko. And 2 Others 2025
