Quashed

Smt. Shashi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2018WRIA/38773/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for continuance as Assistant Teacher. It held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to consider the adverse inquiry report before the Director of Education passed the impugned order, violating principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The Director of Education (Basic) directed to supply inquiry and spot inspection reports to the petitioner within two weeks, who must reply within two weeks, followed by a hearing and final decision w

Smt. Shashi Srivastava Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38773 of 2006 Petitioner :- Smt. Shashi Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Srivastava,Shashi Nandan,Udayan Nandan,V.K.Srivastava,Vinod Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam.Krishna.Gupta,T.N. Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶5

The controversy in the present case centres around the continuance of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School and admittedly her appointment had come to be approved by the order of Assistant District Basic Eduction Officer (Mahila), Deoria dated 16.01.1985. Earlier the matter travelled upto this Court in Writ Petition No. 42291 of 1999, wherein, this Court directed the Director of Education (Basic) to decide the controversy regarding the claim of the petitioner of her valid continuance in the Institution as Assistant Teacher on the date the Institution had been brought on grant-in-aid and for that purpose this Court categorically directed the Basic Shiksha Adhikari concerned to conduct an inquiry into the matter and submit its report. The Court also directed that the Director of Education while considering the report and passing the order in the matter, shall gave opportunity to the petitioner and shall examine the records.

¶6

The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter to be referred as 'DBEO') submitted a report dated 04.06.2005 for which there was no notice given to the petitioner, and if any spot inspection is carried out resulting in adverse report and the same was placed before the Director of Education (Basic) for his consideration, copy thereof ought to have been supplied to the petitioner so as to give him reasonable opportunity to question the findings incorporated in the report and accordingly to enable him to put up his defence before the Director of Education (Basic). Admittedly, the Director of Education (Basic) has relied upon the report submitted by DBEO while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶7

In the opinion of the Court, a reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing is required in the event an issue is being adjudicated upon and so the inquiry report having adverse material, as of necessity, would be supplied to rule out arbitrariness in administrative decision making.

¶8

In the case of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14 the Supreme Court held that "adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind."

¶9

From the recital made in the order passed by the Director of Education (Basic) dated 05.05.2006 it cannot be discerned that the said report was ever supplied to the petitioner or perusal thereof was permitted to the petitioner even at the time of hearing.

¶10

Specific averment in the writ petition in this regard has also been made in paras 28 to 31 of the writ petition and in reply thereof in para 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, the same has remained unrebutted. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not offered to the petitioner while passing the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶11

It is settled law that a decision by administrative authority should be rational one. The words 'Natural Justice' in the opinion of the Court are inherent virtue of 'Rrule of Law' . Neither it is, nor, it should be taken as an empty formality. An oral hearing is not sufficient in the absence of adverse material being supplied to the person concerned so as to enable him to put his objection along with sufficient material in rebuttal at the time of oral hearing.

¶12

In view of the above, the matter requires to be revisited by the Director of Education (Basic). It is accordingly, directed that within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, the copy of the inquiry report of the DBEO dated 04.06.2005 and the spot inspection report of the Sub District Inspector of Schools dated 27.11.1991 shall be supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner shall thereafter submit his detailed reply in respect thereof, offering his explanation to the report within a further period of two weeks, thereafter, the Director of Education (Basic) shall hold hearing afresh and shall take final decision in the matter within a further period of six weeks.

¶13

The impugned order dated 05.05.2006 is accordingly hereby quashed.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.5.2018/IrfanUddin

Smt. Shashi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Lal Vs R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Agra and Others

Santosh Singh and Others. Vs State of U.P and Others.

Suresh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Purshootam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and Ors.

Shiva Shanker Dayal Verma Vs R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Agra and Others

Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs C/M Thru Chiarman District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.