Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31792 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16879 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sarvendra Kumar Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Ahmad Malik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Irfan Ahmad Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet on the ground that petitioner has been charged with the offence for violation of Rule 15 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 which according to the petitioner does not prescribe for any minor or major penalty, and, therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can be held in the matter. 3. Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that Rule 15 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 restraints a Government Servant from carrying out any trade or business directly or indirectly and also restraints from undertaking any employment while in government service and therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel if an employee is found to be doing any business directly or even if associated with the same indirectly as petitioner has been charged under the charge sheet, then such a conduct would amount to misconduct and the meaning of Section 3 of U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 and pursuant in that nature of major penalty even can be imposed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I see that Rule 15 of the Rules restraints a Government servant from carrying out any trade or business directly or indirectly and also restraints him from taking any employment other than the one in which he is. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner is for his conduct in the accompanying his wife for the purpose of sale promotion and that getting indirectly committed with a job of sale promotion of a product. 5. In my prima facie view, if a Government servant does not perform act as per the rules provided under the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, then it amounts to a misconduct within the meaning of Section 3 of the said Rules and therefore, if a government servant even if found to be indirectly engaged in any trade or business then it would be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence but the question remains as to whether this is the stage to examine the defence of the petitioner that while he accompanied his wife only twice he was not at all involved directly or indirectly in any business. This is for the Enquiry Officer to look into and record findings of fact. 6. In such circumstances, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the charge sheet and the disciplinary proceedings in question. 7. Petition fails and is accordingly consigned to record. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad