Background: Mohd. Mohsin Khan vs. State Of U.P.

The Allahabad High Court has provided relief to Muhammad Mohsin Khan (DSP rank officer in the Uttar Pradesh Police) by staying the suspension order issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The suspension was issued following allegations of an extramarital relationship with a woman while Khan remains legally married.

The order came in response to a formal complaint under Section 69 BNS (Sexual intercourse by adopting dishonest tactics, etc.), lodged by a student of IIT Kanpur.

Legal Challenge to the Suspension Order

Khan contested the suspension in the High Court, arguing that the UP Government acted solely based on the recommendation of the Additional Director General of Police, without exercising its own discretion. His counsel emphasized that this action violated principles laid down in administrative conduct rules.

What Constitutes “Misconduct” Under Service Rules?

Khan’s defense asserted that the sole accusation — an alleged extramarital affair — does not qualify as misconduct under Rule 29(1) of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. He categorically denied the allegations and argued that even if proven, such conduct does not meet the threshold of actionable misconduct.

Key Court Observations and Past Rulings Referenced

The bench, led by Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, noted that the High Court had already stayed both the criminal investigation and the charge sheet filing related to the FIR.

It was highlighted that:

• Entering a second marriage while the first is intact may be considered misconduct.
• However, merely maintaining a romantic relationship outside marriage does not equate to misconduct under prevailing service rules.

The Court referred to precedent cases including:

• V.N. Daipuria vs. State of U.P. (2015): Suspension cannot be based merely on recommendation; the appointing authority must apply independent judgment.
• Shahjahan Khan vs. State of U.P. (2002): Cohabitation with a woman does not imply a valid marriage.

These precedents reinforced the Court’s decision to stay the suspension.

Next Steps in the Case

The Court has directed the Standing Counsel to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. The matter is listed for the next hearing on July 28, 2025.

Representing the petitioner were Advocate Lalta Prasad Misra and Advocate Prafulla Tiwari.

Conclusion

This case not only highlights the importance of following due process in disciplinary actions against government servants but also opens up a broader legal debate on personal conduct vs. professional misconduct under service rules. The outcome may set a precedent for how similar allegations are treated within the framework of public service law in India.