Quashed

Madhu Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019WRIA/22573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a termination order against a school warden allegedly passed without considering the inquiry report. The Court quashed the order, citing violation of natural justice, and remitted the matter for a fresh lawful enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.9.2018 quashed; matter remitted to respondent no. 4 to conduct fresh enquiry within three months.

Madhu Rani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22573 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Madhu Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay,Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Jay Ram Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1, 3 and 5 and Sri Jay Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 4.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.9.2018 passed by the fourth respondent namely District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur.

¶7

Affidavits have already been exchanged between the contesting parties.

¶8

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed today, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no.5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶9

The facts in brief as narrated in the writ petition are that Kasturba Gandhi Aawasya Balika Vidyalay Jamalpur, Mirzapur, is a institution established by the State Government in the year 2010. The institution in question was established to provide good education to the children of the weaker section. An advertisement was issued by the State Government inviting applications for appointment of a warden in order to run the institution in a proper manner. After completing the formalities the petitioner was appointed as warden vide order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the fourth respondent. The copy of the same is appended as annexure 1 to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was appointed as warden on contract basis for the academic session 2017-18 i.e. upto March, 2018.

¶10

It is contended by the petitioner in paragraph 7 that subsequently the said appointment was renewed for next academic session 2018-19 i.e. upto 30th March, 2019. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that while discharging the duties no complaint was made against the petitioner at any point of time.

¶12

In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is contended that on 18.8.2018 one student of Class VIII namely Sunaina fallen ill. The care was immediately taken by the petitioner and the information was given by her to all the relevant authorities but ultimately unfortunately the said student died in hospital during course of treatment. The aforesaid incident was highlighted by the media and local newspapers and the FIR was also lodged in this connection. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR basic allegations were made against the Basic Education Officer. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice directing her to submit a reply within seven days. The reply was duly submitted by the petitioner vide reply dated 24.8.2018. Thereafter another letter dated 5.9.2018 was written by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted her reply on 8.9.2018 giving her explanation. It is contended in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner she was removed from service vide order dated 24.9.2018 passed by the fourth respondent. The copy of the said order is appended as annexure 7 to the writ petition. It appears from perusal of the order that during the enquiry against the petitioner the Magistrate was also appointed in order to enquire the matter.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that neither any enquiry report nor Magisterial report has ever been provided to the petitioner and taking into consideration the aforesaid reports, the order impugned has been passed and as such the order impugned was passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

The paragraph 38 of the writ petition and the reply of the same, are reproduced below:-

¶15

" no inquiry report and Magisterial report has been provided to the petitioner giving show cause as mentioned in the impugned order. "

¶16

" That the contents of paragraph No.34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner as stated, hence are denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted by ADM (F/R), Mirzapur and submitted his report to District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 10.09.2018. In aforesaid report petitioner was found guilty, thereafter her serves were terminated by the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur. It is further submitted that the warden is very responsible post. The warden becomes the guardian of students/inmates of the Vidyalaya and conduct of the petitioner, which is evident from the enquiry report dated 10.09.2018. The petitioner had indulged in gross illegality/irregularities in which one student Km. Naina had died. "

¶17

It is admitted between the parties that the copy of the enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner while passing the order against the petitioner, which was taken into consideration.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Vandana Vahistha Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (4) ADJ 819 . The petitioner relied upon paragraph 45 of the aforesaid judgement, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶19

" It is well-settled in law that the disciplinary inquiry is set into motion with the submission of the charge sheet. Thereafter, an inquiry is conducted by fixing a date for evidence of the parties. After that when the inquiry report is submitted a show cause notice is given along with the copy of the inquiry report and it is on consideration of the reply of the delinquent employee that the final order is passed by the disciplinary authority ."

¶20

In view of the settled proposition of law since in the present case, enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, the impugned order dated 24.9.2018 passed by respondent no.4/District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with law after providing full opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a further period of three months from today.

¶21

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Madhu Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Rani v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lakhan Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Pasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Savinay Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Umesh Babu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tribhuwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others