HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10827 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Jai Narain Mishra, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 13.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the competent authority has directed for initiation of the proceedings under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 3. The matter pertains to circulation of an obscene video. 4. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that earlier vide order dated 30.10.2021 for the very same incident a fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar while the petitioner was working under respondent No.3 in which the Naib Tehsildar had indicated that from the perusal of the video, it appears that the petitioner is there in the video but the video requires to be examined forensically. 5. The contention is that after a period of 4 years the respondents cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.29838(SS) of 2018 In Re Satyendra Kumar Tripathi vs Director State Urban Development Agency & Anr. 6. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that it is only the disciplinary proceedings which have been directed to be initiated against Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gyanesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shruti Sahu Narendra Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Urban Employment Poverty Alleviation Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioner. The proceedings are still to be initiated. 7. As per the earlier fact finding report as submitted by the Naib Tehsildar he had observed that prima facie the petitioner is present in the video but then has also required a Forensic Report. 8. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the fact finding enquiry report was itself not conclusive of the petitioner being involved in the incident. 9. The respondents have only initiated disciplinary proceedings and obviously the disciplinary proceedings would be taken to its logical end by the respondents but the matter cannot be prejudged at this stage on the basis of fact finding report which has been submitted which, as already indicated above, prima facie also finds the petitioner to be present in the video. 10. So far as judgment in the case of Satyendra Kumar Tripathi (supra) is concerned, the same would have no applicability inasmuch as the same pertained to the petitioner being placed under suspension and thereafter being repatriated to his parent department which has been found punitive. 11. It is not that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the borrowing department rather it is the parent department of the petitioner which has directed for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. 12. Considering the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed. September 16, 2025 prateek WRIA No. 10827 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench