Samaksh Agarwal v.
Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited
## Case Overview
In a significant employment law dispute, Samaksh Agarwal, who served as
Assistant Manager (Civil) with the Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation
Limited (UPMRC), approached the Allahabad High Court to challenge a
disciplinary action that led to his removal from service. The case,
registered as Writ - A No. 4779 of 2025, was heard by Hon’ble Justice
Rajesh Singh Chauhan and revolved around procedural lapses and the
fairness of the disciplinary process.
---
## 📜 Background and Allegations
The disciplinary action stemmed from alleged misconduct during the
execution of civil works under the Agra Metro Rail Project. The Chief
Project Manager (Civil), acting as the Disciplinary Authority, issued:
- **Memo of Charges (10 March 2024)**: Framed under major penalty
provisions, citing procedural lapses and alleged negligence.
- **Enquiry Report (19 October & 11 November 2024)**: Concluded
findings against Agarwal without clear evidence of gross misconduct.
- **Punishment Order (06 January 2025)**: Terminated Agarwal’s services,
citing breach of duty and project delays.
Agarwal contended that the enquiry was rushed, lacked transparency, and
violated the prescribed time limits under Rule 53 of the UPMRC HR
Manual, which mandates disposal of major penalty cases within four
months of charge-sheet issuance.
---
## ⚖️Legal Grounds Raised
1. **Violation of Natural Justice**
Agarwal argued that he was denied a fair hearing, and the enquiry was
conducted in a manner that prejudiced his defense.
2. **Procedural Irregularities**
The enquiry officer allegedly failed to follow the procedural safeguards
outlined in the HR Manual, including timelines and documentation
standards.
3. **Disproportionate Punishment**
The petitioner emphasized that the punishment of removal was
excessive, especially given his prior service record and the nature of the
charges.
4. **Judicial Review Scope**
The petition invited the Court to examine whether the disciplinary
authority acted arbitrarily or in bad faith, warranting judicial intervention.
---
## ⚖️ Court’s Findings and Judgment
After hearing arguments from both sides—including the petitioner’s
counsel Savitra Vardhan Singh and UPMRC’s representatives—the Court
ruled in favor of Samaksh Agarwal:
- **Punishment Order Quashed**
The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of
natural justice and failed to comply with procedural norms.
- **Reinstatement Ordered**
UPMRC was directed to reinstate Agarwal within four weeks, restoring his
position with full continuity of service and monetary benefits from the
date of suspension.
- **Observations on Inquiry Standards**
The judgment emphasized that disciplinary proceedings in public sector
undertakings must be conducted with strict adherence to fairness,
transparency, and procedural discipline.
---
## 🔍 Implications and Next Steps
- **For UPMRC**: If it chooses to pursue disciplinary action again, it must
initiate a fresh enquiry that complies with legal standards and provides
the petitioner a fair opportunity to respond.
- **For Samaksh Agarwal**: He resumes his role with restored benefits,
and the judgment strengthens his position against arbitrary administrative
actions.
- **For Public Sector Employees**: This case reinforces the judiciary’s role
in safeguarding employee rights against disproportionate and procedurally
flawed disciplinary actions.
---
