Allowed

Shamsher Alam v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023WRIA/3586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of a petitioner's appointment. The judgment held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice point-wise, violating settled legal principles. The order was quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Ghazipur is quashed and matter is remanded to respondents to take a fresh decision within one month after considering the petitioner's re

Shamsher Alam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134033

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3586 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shamsher Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bipin Bihari Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was appointed as District Coordinator (Construction) under Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur on 6.02.2010 and since then he is continuously discharging duties attached to his post with utmost dedication.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since petitioner's honorarium was not being paid, as such, petitioner along with other petitioners filed Writ-A No. 8794 of 2022 in which an interim order was passed on 14.07.2022 whereby direction was given to the respondents to make payment to petitioners in terms of paragraph 7(3) of the decision of the Executive Committee of U.P. Education for All Project Board.

¶8

Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022, petitioner was paid due honorarium but due to filing of the aforesaid writ petition, Opposite Parties got annoyed with the petitioner.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court that after passing of the order by this Court, it appears that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner behind his back and on the basis of that enquiry report, explanation of the petitioner was sought which was duly submitted by him to District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though he has submitted his detailed reply giving explanation to each and every point of the notice given to him but it is apparent from the impugned order contained in Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition that petitioner's reply has not been considered at all and only this much has been said that petitioner has given a reply only

¶11

just to cover up the issues and there is nothing in his reply worth consideration.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that respondents without considering the reply of the petitioner has passed order dated 03.01.2023 whereby petitioner has been disengaged from the post of District Coordinator (Construction), District Ghazipur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is well settled through catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if any reply to a show cause notice is given then each and every point of the explanation must be considered and only thereafter, decision must be taken.

¶14

I have considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

From a bare perusal of the communication order dated 5.01.2023, it is apparent that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all and only this much has been said that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and impugned order has been passed whereby petitioner's engagement has been terminated.

¶16

It is also well-settled through catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that reply submitted pursuant to the show cause notice has to be considered point-wise. Mere saying that reply submitted to the show cause notice is not satisfactory, will not suffice the requirement of law.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed . The order passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur which has been communicated through letter dated 5.01.2023, is hereby quashed.

¶18

Matter is remanded to the respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.7.2023/A. Mandhani

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamsher Alam v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsher Alam 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Priyanka Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Meraj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aradhana Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kamini Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others