, special appeal against a Single Judge order expunging stigmatic remarks made without an opportunity of hearing under Article 311. The High Court held that the remarks incapacitated for the office and altered future career, ordered the remarks be expunged.
Expungement of stigmatic remarks from other records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2012
Appellant :- Awadh Kishore Singh Respondent :- Smt. Urmila Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,P.N. Saksena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The instant special appeal has been preferred by Sri Awadh Kishore Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur aggrieved from the observation made in paragraph 3 of the order dated 09.01.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 66021 of 2011 (Smt. Urmila Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others).
It appears that one Urmila Singh filed Writ- A No. 66021 of 2011 before this Court claiming herself as ad hoc Principal with the following prayer:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 24.9.2011 and 8.10.2011, passed by the respondent no. 1, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur so far as withholding the salary of the petitioner.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1- District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to pay salary to the petitioner for the post of Principal w.e.f. 1.7.2011 and onwards month to month in accordance with law."
The respondent was noticed to file counter affidavit and accordingly, a counter affidavit sworn by appellant was filed in the aforesaid writ petition and after going through the said counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge made following stricture against the appellant in paragraph 3 of the order which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"3. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that present Officer holding the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur is totally incapable to hold such an office. The Secretary, Basic Education, shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such incompetent Officer should not hold such important Office in field and should be posted at a place of insignificance at the earliest."
It is contended by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the appellant that since the remarks made against the appellant in paragraph 3 of the impugned order are stigmatic in nature and are likely to adversely affect his future carrier prospects, at least the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before recording of the aforesaid remarks against him. The same having not been done, the impugned remarks made against the appellant in paragraph 3 of the judgment in question are liable to be expunged.
We have heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material brought on record.
We find that there is force in submission made by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate as there is no iota of any doubt that remarks have been recorded against the appellant in paragraph 3 of the judgment in question without his being heard and if the same are allowed to stand these are going to adversely affect his future career prospects.
We, accordingly, allow this special appeal and expunge the remarks made in paragraph 3 of the order dated 09.01.2012 against the appellant.
Order Date :- 19.11.2019 V.S.Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether expungement is required for stigmatic remarks against an official recorded without an opportunity of hearing.
Whether specific performance or mandamus is required for salary payment.
Awadh Kishore Singh
Urmila Singh
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
