HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14184 of 2026 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Mr. Devansh Mishra, learned advocate appears for petitioner and submits, his client has challenged judgement and order dated 09th June, 2026 of the Tribunal. It was on late disclosure of his assets, being a government servant. There were minor and major penalties awarded. Against the penalties his client filed claim petition before the Tribunal. By impugned judgement and order the major penalties were set aside but minor penalty of censure entry, confirmed. His client has, therefore, to that extent challenged said judgement and order. 2. On query Mr. Mishra submits, there was initially requisition upon his client to make the declaration. He refers to one of the reasoning paragraphs in impugned judgement and order, reproduced below. "आरोप सं0-4 में इस तथ्य का उल्लेख िकया गया है िक याची व्दारा अपने चल-अचल सम्पित्त की सूचना दस वषोर्ं बाद दी गयी। सामान्य तौर पर िनधार्िरत समयाविध में चल-अचल सम्पित्त की सूचना िदया जाना िकसी भी राजकीय कािमक का दाियत्व है िकन्तु इस सम्बन्ध में यह भी तथ्य है िक कािमक िवभाग व्दारा इस आशय के शासनादेश समय-समय पर िनगर्त िकये जाते हैं िक यिद िकसी कािमक व्दारा िनधार्िरत समय सीमा के अन्तगर्त चल-अचल सम्पित्त की सूचना नहीं दी गयी है तो उसे वेतन वृिद्ध, पदोन्नित व अन्य सेवा लाभ नहीं िदये जायेंगे। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में िवभाग ने ऐसा कोई उपबन्ध िकया है वह पत्रावली से घ्विनत नहीं हो रहा है।" He relies on above finding of the Tribunal that relevant Government Orders (GOs) were not intimated to his client. In the circumstances, it cannot be said his client is guilty since declaration was made, though Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankur Mishra, Devansh Misra, Shiv Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dinesh Kumar Verma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) belatedly. The award of minor punishment was bad. He seeks interference. 3. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for State. He opposes the writ petition. The Tribunal upon hearing petitioner and giving reasons passed impugned judgement and order. There be no interference. 4. There does not appear to be any dispute that petitioner was initially under requisition to make the declaration. He did not. On further query we have ascertained, no further notice or communication was made, which prompted petitioner to belatedly disclose. In the circumstances, there was omission on part of petitioner. The Tribunal has maintained the minor punishment of censure entry. It is not based on any reasoning which we find to be perverse. 5. Mr. Mishra submits there be observation made recording that State has supported impugned judgement and order. On query Mr. Tiwari submits, he does not have instruction that there has been step taken to challenge it. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. October 8, 2026 S.P. WRIA No. 14184 of 2026 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad