HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1017 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mohd. Faizan Ali, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant states that the issue is covered by our earlier decision in Ram Krishna Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others, 2026:AHC:180726-DB, wherein it has been observed as below:- "2. We find no occasion to interfere with the order of the learned single judge dated 20.07.2026 in Ram Krishna Vs. Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur and Others, 2026:AHC:148046. 3. The basic facts are undisputed. While working as Collection Ameen, against yearly target of Rs.2,50,000/-, the original petitioner/ appellant recovered less than Rs.1,00,000/-. His explanation that such short recovery arose occasioned by his suspension from service, does not inspire confidence as the original petitioner/ appellant remained suspended for about one month, whereas the target in excess of Rs.2,50,000/- had been fixed for whole year. 4. Second, the punishment order holding two increments and censure entry have been awarded after conclusion of a full-fledged domestic inquiry. No defect in that inquiry is shown as may warrant any Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Gupta, Shyam Sunder Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Krishna .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) interference in exercise of judicial review. 5. Third, in the context of the charge leveled, the punishment awarded is not shockingly disproportionate as may have prompted the writ Court to offer any interference. 6. Applying the settled principles, that govern judicial review, specifically writ petition arising from penalty orders, and considering the fact that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner during the inquiry as also thereafter before the disciplinary authority and the appeal authority, we find no error in the order of learned single judge. 7. The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed." 3. In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed. September 8, 2026 #Vikram/- SPLA No. 1017 of 2026 2 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad