Disposed

Prem Sagar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023WRIA/2420/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension and proposed dismissal of an Assistant Teacher. The court held that dismissal was invalid without prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer and directed the officer to decide within one month while considering charges and inquiry compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Mau to take decision on the dismissal resolution of the Committee of Management within one month, considering charges and inquiry compliance.

Prem Sagar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183797

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2420 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Ram

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶7

Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 is not present before the court even in the revised call of the cases.

¶8

Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5 whereby services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 5 i.e. Manager Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Primary School Dharmagatpur Gulauri, District Meerut wherein it is mentioned that Committee of Management of the school has taken decision to dismiss the petitioner from service.

¶9

Facts of the case, in brief, are that Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Primary School Dharmagatpur Gulauri, District Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the school) is run by a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act 1860 and is recognized by U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. The aforesaid school is also receiving financial grant by the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P. Petitioner who is a regularly appointed Assistant Teacher of school and was being paid salary from the State Exchequer, his services were placed under suspension vide order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 also issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 12.07.2019.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the suspension order dated 05.07.2019 as well as

¶11

the charge sheet dated 12.07.2019 reveals that the charges levelled against the petitioner are absolutely vague and no punishment can be imposed against the petitioner on the basis of the said charges. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that without adopting any procedure prescribed for conducting inquiry against the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing in the inquiry, Manager of the school vide his letter dated 06.01.2020 has informed that the Committee of Management of the school has taken decision to dismiss the petitioner from service.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are absolutely vague. It has been further argued that the inquiry officer has not fixed any date, time and place for conducting inquiry and straightway Committee of Management of the school has taken decision to dismiss the petitioner from service. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this court towards Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and others Conditions) Rules, 1975, wherein it is provided that any teacher working in a Primary School recognized by U.P. Basic Education Board can be dismissed from service only after obtaining prior approval from the concerned District Basic Education Officer, whereas in the present case till date approval has not been granted by the District Basic Education Officer.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also invited attention of this court towards order dated 01.01.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau whereby he has refused to take decision in respect of the matter of approval over the decision of the Committee of Management of the school for dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that petitioner has filed Writ-A No. 2420 of 2020 before this court and till such time said writ petition is pending decision cannot be taken.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 4 & 5 is not present before this court even in the revised call of the cases, therefore this court has perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 4 & 5

¶15

Prima facie, I find that absolutely vague charges have been levelled against the petitioner and no inquiry as contemplated under the rules has been conducted and therefore, the decision of the Committee of Management of the school for dismissing the

¶16

petitioner from service appears to be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶17

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 and I find that petitioner can be dismissed from service only after grant of prior approval by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau. For ready reference Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and others Conditions) Rules, 1975 is extracted as Under :-

¶18

" 11. Dismissal and Removal of Teachers. -No order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognised school shall be passed save with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari:

¶19

Provided that in case of recognised schools established and administered by minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, such an order shall not require the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but shall be reported to him. "

¶20

I find that the decision by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau as contemplated under Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and others Conditions) Rules, 1975 has yet not been taken and the same has been kept in abeyance due to pendency of this writ petition.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Mau to take decision over the resolution of the Committee of Management of the School dismissing the petitioner from service, as contemplated under Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and others Conditions) Rules, 1975 within a period one month from the date of service of certified copy of this order.

¶22

The District Basic Education Officer, while taking the decision will also consider as to whether there is any serious charge against the petitioner which may warrant his dismissal from service and further whether the inquiry in the matter of petitioner has been conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the rules.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Gaurav

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Sagar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Sagar Chauhan 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

Shivali Mohan Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Awadhesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shreyansh (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Jyori Bhati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others