Interpreting ‘Bhagwa’: A report on the arbitrary application of UP Government Servant Conduct Rules
In December 2025, UP’s Public Service Tribunal imposed punishment on a public servant for a Facebook post made in 2018. A formal warning, a transfer and a chargesheet have trailed the officer since. Glaringly, the tribunal has overstepped its own mandate, even violating the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules.
Vaibhav Singh
Published on: 10 May 2026, 12:28 pm
CAN THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENTclaim a monopoly over a color? Is the term 'Bhagwa', a symbol of ancient renunciation and cultural heritage now legally synonymous with the State? These haunting questions that lead us to a crossroads where the spirit of justice has been sacrificed at the altar of linguistic speculation and administrative overreach. This case study details an inquiry where mandatory due process was discarded in favor of an arbitrary "flawed syllogism."
Perhaps most distressing is the shift in the hallowed halls of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal. Instead of asking if the law was followed, the inquiry, instead, posed the question: What is a woman of rank allowed to say? When judges prioritize an officer's "moral mandate" over the "flawed nature" of a state’ government’s prosecution, the very foundation of constitutional morality begins to crumble.
On February 2, 2018, a local media outlet Hindustan News reported about a social media interaction by Rashmi Varun (Deputy Director of the Economics and Statistics Division in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh). The publication highlighted a Facebook comment made by the officer concerning an Ambedkar rally in Kasganj. Notably, this post was private in nature, garnering minimal engagement with only six or seven views and likes. Yet it was subsequently leveraged as the basis for disciplinary action. The details of the post are herein as under:
Under mounting duress from departmental authorities, the officer was compelled to post an apology on Facebook on February 2, 2018. This is what she wrote:
The Hindustan News further publicized the matter on February 4, 2018, effectively keeping the controversy in the public eye despite the officer's attempt to de-escalate the situation.
Following the first publication in Hindustan News, the District Magistrate (acting as In-charge Commissioner) issued a Show Cause Notice on February 3, 2018. The petitioner submitted a prompt and comprehensive reply on February 4, 2018. However, by February 5, 2018, the Commissioner summarily passed an order holding her guilty of violating the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956.
Consequently, a formal warning was issued, and the petitioner was immediately transferred and attached to the Headquarters Division. The stated justification for these punitive measures was that her social media activity was 'indirectly critical of the government,' despite the lack of a detailed inquiry or evidence of actual misconduct. According to the Government Order published by Uttar Pradesh on September 27, 2019 (at para 7(6)), if an opportunity has been given and a warning has been issued, five marks are to be deducted in assessment for promotion, and under Clause 7 such adverse material is to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Despite the initial punishment of warning remaining in force, a formal chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on February 28, 2018, based on the same Facebook post. This second proceeding constitutes a clear violation of the principle of double jeopardy, as prohibited under the State Government Order of April 22, 2015 and protected under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
In her response to the chargesheet on March 21, 2018, the petitioner categorically denied the allegations, asserting that the post lacked any malicious intent and had been irrationally sensationalized by local media. She further raised the vital preliminary objection that she had already been penalized for the same alleged misconduct by punishment of warning on February 5, 2018.
