LUCKNOW — The Uttar Pradesh government has begun treating the prolonged absence of senior IAS officer Sameer Verma with unusual seriousness, after reports indicated that he has been missing from duty without official permission since October 2025.
Verma, a 2002-batch officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, had been posted as secretary in the planning department. But according to the reports, he never took charge of the new assignment and has remained out of contact for months, a lapse now being viewed as a clear violation of service rules.
The episode has caused visible unease in administrative circles. In the bureaucracy, absence is rarely just personal. It is procedural, documented and governed by rules. When a senior officer disappears from official duty for months without sanctioned leave, the matter quickly shifts from curiosity to institutional concern.
From IG Stamps to a New Posting He Never Joined
The dispute appears to have begun earlier in 2025.
Reports say Verma was removed from the post of IG Stamps and Registration in June 2025. Later, in October 2025, the government posted him to the important position of secretary in the planning department. But he is said to have shown no interest in taking up the responsibility and never marked his presence in the department.
That refusal to assume charge is now central to the case. In the structure of government service, transfer and posting are not optional gestures. They are binding administrative decisions. By failing to join the new post, Verma is reported to have placed himself in direct conflict with the service discipline expected of a senior officer.
The matter has also drawn attention because of Verma’s seniority. This is not a junior bureaucrat slipping through procedural cracks. It is a long-serving IAS officer whose absence has raised questions about administrative control and the limits of internal enforcement.
The Study Leave Request and the Unauthorised Absence
One explanation emerging from the reports is that Verma had wanted to pursue an MBA.
According to accounts carried in the reports, after being removed from the IG Stamps post, Verma applied for study leave to undertake MBA studies. The Uttar Pradesh government rejected that request. Yet despite the rejection, he is said to have remained away from work without authorization.
That sequence has made the case more complicated. Had the leave been approved, the officer’s absence would have been regularized within the service framework. Instead, the refusal of study leave appears to have been followed by what the government now regards as unauthorized absence.
In bureaucratic terms, this is not a minor procedural lapse. It goes to the basic question of whether service conditions apply equally to all officers, however senior. Reports have noted that remaining absent from work for such a long period without permission is treated as a breach of discipline under service rules.
Inquiry and Disciplinary Action Now Underway
The government has now moved beyond informal concern.
Reports say departmental inquiry and disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against Verma. At present, his case is said to be under detailed review at the government level, and a decision is expected in accordance with service rules.
The tone of the official response suggests that the matter is no longer being handled as an anomaly that may quietly resolve itself. It is being processed as a test of administrative discipline. In that sense, the case of Sameer Verma is not simply about one officer’s unexplained absence. It is also about the state’s need to demonstrate that even high-ranking members of the bureaucracy cannot indefinitely step outside the chain of accountability without consequence.
For Uttar Pradesh’s administrative establishment, that may be the more consequential issue. A senior officer’s disappearance unsettles a department. A prolonged absence without resolution unsettles the system itself.
