Disposed

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

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019WRIA/27657/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition at the admission stage. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher later promoted to Headmaster, sought mandamus to complete an enquiry and take action against a former colleague accused of misconduct. The Court directed the District Basic Education Officer to pass appropriate orders after receiving a formal representation from the petitioner within three we

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a comprehensive representation within 3 weeks; respondent to decide after hearing parties within 3 months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27657 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer :-

¶6

"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to complete the enquiry initiated against the respondent no.4 in pursuance of the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition).

¶7

ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to take appropriate action against the respondent no.4 in pursuance of the enquiry so conducted in pursuance of the order dated 23.10.2013."

¶8

Heard Sri R. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent no.3 and 5.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order going to pass today, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶10

The facts in brief as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalaya run and controlled by the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, in the year 2009. Subsequently he was promotted as Headmaster in a Primary Vidhyalay run and controlled by the same Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. The petitioner was subsequently transferred as Headmaster in Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Jamunali, Mednapur, Block Baitalpur, District Deoria and at present he is working there.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier respondent no.4 was posted as Headmaster in Prathmik

¶12

Vidhyalaya, Karmail, Banrahi, Block Baitalpur, District Deoria. The Pradhan of the aforesaid village made a complaint against the respondent no.4 and on the basis of the said complaint an order of suspension was also passed against the respondent no.4 but subsequently the said order of suspension was revoked by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria. Various allegations were made regarding conduct and functioning of the respondent no.4. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is contended that District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, after taking into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the three members committee, appointed Assistant Accounts Officer, Serv Shiksha Abhiyan, in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the respondent no.4 vide its order dated 23.10.2013 (annexure 1 to the writ petition).

¶13

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till date no final decision has been taken in this regard by the respondents. It is further pointed out by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that raising allegations against the conduct of the respondent no.4 various representations were made by the petitioner addressed to the District Basic Education Officer from time to time but till date no action has been taken.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to pass appropriate orders in respect of the complaints made by the petitioner against the respondent no.4. The petitioner is also directed to move a comprehensive representation ventilating all his grievances addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, within three weeks from today along-with certified copy of this order. If such representation is made, the respondent no.3 will pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 namely Brijesh Kumar Mishra within a further period of three months.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tribhuwan Yadav 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

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

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