Partly allowed

Prem Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023WRIA/2348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order approving the petitioner's suspension as an officiating principal. The court set aside the impugned order for potential violation of natural justice and remitted the matter for a fresh reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.12.2022 approving suspension is set aside and the matter is remitted to pass a fresh reasoned order within two months.

Prem Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138906

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2348 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Jain

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondent no. 1 and 2 and Sri Rahul Jain, who appears for the third respondent.

¶7

Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties before me that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus on their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

¶8

The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the present writ petition is that he was appointed as L.T. Grade-Teacher in third respondent institution namely Bilhaur Inter College, Bilhaur Kanpur Nagar on 1.1.1991 and subsequently promoted as Lecturer on 27.5.2005 on permanent/regular basis. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that the post of Principal fell vacant in the year 2011 consequently the petitioner claiming himself to be fully eligible and qualified being senior most Lecturer was appointed as ad hoc Officiating Principal in the year 2011 and he continued without any complaint whatsoever. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that on account of certain confrontation with the institution in question and the petitioner in particular the same transformed into a discordant atmosphere occasioning passing of multiple suspension orders firstly on 12.6.2014, secondly on 12.5.2019, thirdly 19.7.2019, fourth on 30.6.2021 and fifthly on 21.1.2022, in most of the cases the either the departmental proceeding was not completed by the management or the same was not approved under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that when he was placed under suspension for the very first time on 12.6.2014 then the same was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the writ petitioner while filing Writ Petition No.48524 of 2014 in which this court declined to accord interference in the said matter. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that even criminal proceedings

¶9

were lodged against the writ petitioner being Case Crime No.357 of 2012 with regard to alleged financial irregularities.

¶10

It is the further stand of the writ petitioner that the departmental proceedings with regard to the first suspension order was dropped. According to the writ petitioner the second suspension order was passed on 12.5.2019 virtually on the same charges which was disapproved by the second respondent on 9.7.2019 and thereafter a resolution was also passed on 7.7.2019 reverting the writ petitioner from the post of Officiating Principal to the post of Lecturer. However, the proceedings are pending before the selection board. Thirdly, another suspension order was passed on 19.7.2019 more or less on the same charge which was also disapproved on 13.9.2019 which was subject matter of challenge by the third respondent by filing Writ Petition No.16261 of 2019 which also did not found any favour with the management. Fourth suspension order was passed on 30.6.2021 with identical allegations containing as many as three charges and the charge sheet was also issued in that regard however during the pendnecy of the fourth suspension order and the charge sheet again a suspension order was passed on 21.1.2022 on the basis of the allegations dated 19.1.2022. A charge sheet was also served upon the writ petitioner on 27.1.2022. It has also been argued that supplementary charge sheet has also been issued.

¶11

It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner preferred a Writ -A No.10533 of 2022 before this Court challenging the said orders of the writ petitioner which was disposed of on 30.8.2022 without interfering with the suspension order requiring the writ petitioner to file reply to the charge sheet and the departmental inquiry was directed to be concluded within time bound period. The writ petitioner claims to have preferred a Special Appeal No.605 of 2022 (Prem Chandra Tripathi vs. State of U.P. & others) in which an interim order was accorded by the Special Appellate Bench on 30.9.2022 noting the fact that prima facie the management was issuing multiple suspension orders and whenever the writ petitioner was to assume the charge then another suspension order was issued and in the Special Appellate Bench suspended the effect and operation of the order dated 21.1.2022 and 16.6.2022 passed by the management and the second respondent, while granting liberty to the second respondent to accord consideration for approval of the suspension order. The order passed by the Special Appellate Bench was put to challenge in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23587 of 2022 which came to be dismissed on 6.1.2023.

¶12

As per the writ petitioner on 18.11.2022 the District Inspector

¶13

of Schools Kanpur Nagar, second respondent proceeded to pass an order and thereafter according to the writ petitioner now the impugned order has been passed on 30.12.2022 by the third respondent according approval of the suspension of the writ petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the second respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice as pursuant to the direction dated 18.11.2022 and 25.11.2022 of the Director of the Education (Madhyamik) and the letter dated 8.12.2022, 19.12.2022 was also a date fixed for hearing. On that date the writ petitioner as well as third respondent submitted their version by means of a detailed application/representation/objection.

¶15

According to learned counsel for the writ petitioner though objections/representations were filed by both writ petitioner and the third respondent but the copy of the same was not exchanged between the parties and after 19.11.2022 no date was fixed.

¶16

It is further the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, second respondent has proceeded to pass the order impugned even when he was to retire on 31.12.2022 just a date prior to his superannuation in hot haste hurried manner which cannot be said to be illegal in the eyes of law.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph nos. 32, 33 and 34 of the writ petition so as to contend that there has been violation of principles of natural justice post 19.12.2022 there was no hearing done and further doctrine of prejudice is also be put to service.

¶18

Prayer in the present writ petition for quashing of the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and not to interfere in the peace full functioning as Officiating Principal of the institution in question.

¶19

This Court on 16.6.2023 required the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit disclosing the stand of the second respondent with regard to issue of hearing being accorded to be parties in question.

¶20

A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 being the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar to sworn on 29.4.2023.

¶21

Sri Rahul Jain who appears for the third respondent, Committee of Management has also filed a counter affidavit dated 6.4.2023.

¶22

On the strength of the averments made in paragraphs 24, 25, 26 & 27 which is in reply to paragraphs 30 to 34 of the writ petition it has been sought to be argued that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice as even in fact reliance has been placed upon a document at page 30 of the counter affidavit of the State respondents so as to further contend that their happens to be paper which is in the nature of a minutes dated 19.12.2022 containing the signature of the writ petitioner and the third respondent with the recital that parties before this Court who are petitioner and the third respondent were happy with the proceedings and they did not seek furnishing of the documents in that regard. While referring to page 31 of the said affidavit dated 24.12.2022 which is subsequent to 19.12.2022, it is being sought to be canvassed that the writ petitioner was happy with the proceedings and he did not ask for any documents in that regard.

¶23

Sri Rahul Jain, who appears for the third respondent submits that the writ petitioner was given full opportunity and he was present on 19.12.2022 itself and he was well aware about the allegations and the stand to be taken against him and there is no question of any violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶24

During the course of hearing Sri Alok Trivedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Rahul Jain for the third respondent have made joint statements that in view of the cardinal principle of law that their should not any violation of principles of natural justice whenever order has passed entailing civil consequences and termed as adverse, so accorded to them the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the second respondent be set aside the matter be remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order within stipulated time so as to eliminate the chances of any contingency with regard to allegations of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the third respondent the exercise should be completed within time stipulated by this Court and their should not be any adjournment of any of the parties unless it is extremely unavoidable.

¶26

Sri Rahul Jain, who appears for the third respondent institution submits that once order impugned is being set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar then the arrangement with

¶27

regard to the suspension of the writ petitioner may continue till the passing of the fresh order by the second respondent.

¶28

To such a suggestion the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Alok Dwivedi and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel has no objection as according to them the arrangement which is continuing till date should continue till the passing of the fresh order.

¶29

Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, this Court of the opinion that the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of the service of the order by either of the parties. The second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar shall pass a reasoned and a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within the time stipulated herein.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands partly allowed .

¶31

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 piyush

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. and 6 Others

Poonam Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Nitu Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Liton Sarkar and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Shyam Sundar Vs State of U.P. and Another