⚖️ Divyanshu Srivastava’s Reinstatement and Punishment: The Case of Lekhpal Divyanshu Shrivastava in Mirzapur

The official order issued by the Magistrate/Sub-District Magistrate Sadar Mirzapur concerns Shri Divyanshu Shrivastava. This post examines Divyanshu Srivastava’s case in detail. He was the then Lekhpal of Raipuri Tehsil Sadar. It presents a complex case of disciplinary action. There is also reinstatement and punitive measures under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. This document provides details on the charges and the delinquent employee’s explanations. It also includes the investigation report and the final decision. The document offers a compelling look into the standards of conduct expected from government officials. It shows the disciplinary process when those standards breached.

---

📅 The Timeline and Core Allegations about Divyanshu Srivastava’s misconduct

Shri Divyanshu Shrivastava was initially, suspended on August 26, 2024, following a serious complaint. The core issue was related to his purported behavior with a villager and an audio clip that gained significant attention.

• Suspension Date: August 26, 2024 (Office letter no. 615/V.Ka./20 Ka./)
• Charge Sheet Issued: October 15, 2024 (Received by the employee on October 21, 2024)
• Employee’s Reply: December 26, 2024
• Investigating Officer’s (Tehsildar Sadar) Report: December 30, 2024

Three primary charges leveled against the Lekhpal:

1. Charge 1: Using Indecent Language: On August 26, 2024, the employee allegedly used indecent language toward a villager. This behavior is a violation of the UP Government Servant Conduct Rules.
2. Charge 2: Demand for Improper Benefit: The employee was, accused of soliciting a benefit from the villagers. This benefit was, deemed improper. It was, identified as a bribe in exchange for government services.
3. Charge 3: Irresponsible Conduct with a Public Representative: The employee responded irresponsibly to an inquiry from a respected public representative. The conduct was, also considered undisciplined.

---

🧐 Contradictory Findings in Divyanshu Srivastava’s case: The Investigation vs. The Final Authority

The most salient feature of this case is the contradiction between the Investigation Officer’s (Tehsildar Sadar’s) report. There is also a contradiction with the final decision. The decision reached by the Magistrate/Sub-District Magistrate Sadar.

1. Charge of Indecent Language (Charge 1) on Divyanshu Srivastava

• Employee’s Explanation: Shri Shrivastava denied that he spoke to any villager on the said date. He claimed the audio recording came from an earlier date (August 23, 2024). He stated that someone tampered with the clip. Current scientific technology mimicked his voice. He asserted his innocence. He conveyed his points with a smooth, engaging tone. This tone was similar to the friendly and reassuring Activa voice. It made each statement feel trustworthy and confident.
• Investigating Officer’s Report: The Tehsildar Sadar noted that the complainant failed to provide an affidavit, and lacked adequate evidence. Specific Government Orders (dated May 9, 1997, and April 19, 2012) required these documents. The officer collected statements from other villagers. However, the report concluded that the Lekhpal was not at fault. The report did not prove the allegation.
• Magistrate’s Conclusion: The final authority found the Investigation Officer’s report “contradictory” and incomplete. The Magistrate weighed the initial report of the then Naib Tehsildar Pahadi (dated 26.08.2024) significantly, which clearly showed that the delinquent employee used indecent language and demanded improper benefits in a viral audio clip. The Magistrate noted the serious nature of the conduct, which violated the required ‘civil behaviour’ of a government servant. Critically, the Magistrate concluded that Charge 1 is fully, proved. The Investigation Officer also received a warning for failing to properly examine the allegations.

2. Charge of Demanding a Bribe on Divyanshu Srivastava (Charge 2)

• Employee’s Explanation: Similar to Charge 1, the employee denied the conversation and the recording. He cited tampering and the lack of any demand for improper benefit. He maintained his innocence.
• Investigating Officer’s Report: The Tehsildar Sadar revealed through the investigation that there was no complaint of a bribe. He based this finding on the Lekhpal’s explanation and the villagers’ statements. After he reviewed the statements, he noted the absence of an affidavit. He found no proper evidence as per government orders. Consequently, he concluded that the complaint was baseless and that the Lekhpal was not, proved guilty.
• Magistrate’s Conclusion: Again, the Magistrate found the investigation report contradictory and incomplete. The Naib Tehsildar Pahadi’s initial report played a crucial role in the case. Additionally, the rules categorize demanding improper benefits as misconduct. For these reasons, the Magistrate ruled that the employee’s conduct violated the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Although the Magistrate acknowledged that the audio clip lacked technical proof, the complainant failed to present evidence. Based on the Naib Tehsildar’s initial findings, the Magistrate ultimately concluded that the implied Divyanshu Srivastava’s conduct was serious. Therefore, Charge 2 is fully, proved.

3. Charge of Irresponsible Conduct with a Public Representative (Charge 3)

• Employee’s Explanation: The employee stated that they provided all information sought by the public representative. They did this as per rules. No indiscipline occurred.
• Investigating Officer’s Report: The Tehsildar Sadar determined that the employee did not provide a proper explanation. The evidence was missing. As a result, officials did not convict the employee, and the allegation remained unproven.
• Magistrate’s Conclusion: The final decision noted that the Naib Tehsildar’s initial report indicated guilt. The charge sheet made the Lekhpal prima facie guilty of abusive language. However, due to the Investigation Officer’s failure to duly test the electronic evidence, the technical situation was incomplete. Therefore, the Magistrate concluded that Charge 3 about Divyanshu Srivastava’s misconduct is partially proved.

The Magistrate’s final finding is a strong assertion of authority. It overrules the Tehsildar’s report based on a deeper scrutiny of the initial evidence (Naib Tehsildar’s report). This decision reflects the inherent responsibility expected of a government servant. The Magistrate determined that Charge 1 and 2 are fully proved, and Charge 3 is partially proved.

---

📝 The Final Verdict and Imposed Punishments

Despite the proven guilt on major counts, Shri Divyanshu Shrivastava is reinstated in service. However, his reinstatement comes with significant punishments. These are under the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. This reflects the severity of the established misconduct.

The following punitive measures are imposed on Divyanshu Srivastava:

• Salary for Suspension Period: The Lekhpal will not be paid salary for the entire period of his suspension. This is a common penalty. It converts the suspension period into a period without pay. It acts as a significant financial deterrent.
• Permanent Stoppage of One Salary Increment: This is a severe punishment. It has a lasting impact on the employee’s career progression. It also affects their lifetime earnings. By permanently stopping one increment, his salary will remain perpetually lower than it otherwise would have been.
• Censure Entry: The authorities entered an official record of censure against Shri Shrivastava. This was for his use of indecent language in the audio clip with the villager. It burning proof of Divyanshu Srivastava’s misconduct. The incident occurred on August 26, 2024. This official record of condemnation serves as a permanent negative mark in his service book.

Gulab Chandra-II, the Magistrate/Sub-District Magistrate, signs the order, marking the final administrative action against the Lekhpal Divyanshu Srivastava. This case serves as a clear warning. While investigators may show procedural deficiencies, government servants who breach public conduct face serious consequences. Such breaches will attract severe disciplinary actions. The final order underscores the emphasis on maintaining civil and decent behaviour towards the public.

PM Kisan Samman Nidhi is not reaching proper beneficiaries due to corruption

Thanks to DDA office Mirzapur for approving application for PMKSN after 1 year 3 months. Corruption and misconduct of Lekhpal in Tehsil Sadar Mirzapur reflects true picture