Quashed

Smt.Rekha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2019WRIA/18134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a dismissal order from service. The court held that the employer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the UP Basic Education Staff Rules and Government Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, including Rule 4, and denied an adjournment. The order was quashed for violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur quashed. Right to fresh disciplinary proceedings preserved.

Smt.Rekha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18134 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt.Rekha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned standing counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

¶4

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that according to the petitioner she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Vidyalaya Khairpar, District Gorakhpur, by order of the respondent No.3 dated 15.12.1999, where she is working from last about 19 or 20 years. On the basis of some complaint regarding educational certificates of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 wrote some letter to the respondent No.6 and received a communication from the Manager of the respondent No.6 that the "Vyayam Visharad" marksheet of the petitioner has not been issued from the institution and she has not received training from his institution. On receipt of the said communication by letter of the respondent No.6 dated 20.09.2019, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 27.09.2019 to the petitioner requiring her to show cause as to why she may not be dismissed from service.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure for dismissal from service is provided under the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 framed under Section 10 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, which has not been followed. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order being without following procedure established by law and in breach of natural justice; is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. He further submits that the educational certificates and marksheet of the petitioner are not forged or fabricated.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 submits that the relevant provisions for dismissal from service of an assistant teacher are the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rule, 1973. He submits that a show cause notice was given by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner but she failed to submit any reply or to lead any evidence. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has not committed any manifest error of law to pass the impugned order under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rule, 1973.

¶7

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

It has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 that the service of the petitioner has been dismissed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rule, 1973. However, he could not point out that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules 1973 and the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, have been followed. That apart even the single adjournment sought by the petitioner was not granted by the respondent No.3. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

¶9

The writ petition is allowed.

¶10

It is made clear that it shall be open for the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.11.2019/NLY

Smt.Rekha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Rekha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjali Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonakshi Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Kumar Tripathi Vs Lalit Kumar Pathak Manager Pt. Nehru Purva Mathyamik Vidh.

Balbeer Pal Vs N.K. Singh Chauhan Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam

Mahendra Nath Dwivedi and Another Vs Parthsarathi Sen Sharma Secry. Secondary Edu. and Ors.