Quashed

Shashendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/9867/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging termination of services as Assistant Teacher for alleged employment fraud. High Court held the order non-speaking as no inquiry was held, reply ignored, and documents unverified. Court quashed termination order permitting fresh proceedings with adherence to service rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner granted liberty to proceed afresh following service rules and hearing; petitioner reinstated with salary from impugned order date.

Shashendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9867 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Shashendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Rishabh Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and Mr. Ranvijay Singh learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12th August, 2023 whereby petitioner's services as an Assistant Teacher in the school in question have been terminated on the allegation that he obtained employment in the year 1990 on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the service rules pertaining to holding of inquiry for terminating services of substantively appointed employee have not been followed at all.

¶9

It has been submitted that an inquiry has already been conducted at the time of his appointment into the matter to verify whether documents submitted by petitioner were genuine or not and impugned order has been passed after almost 33 years.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties do not have any instructions in this matter.

¶11

It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 are applicable upon the petitioner which in Rule 7 clearly prescribes procedure for imposing major penalty upon any employee.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record. particularly the impugned order, it is quite evident that prior to issuance of order pertaining to termination of petitioner from service, only a show cause notice has been given to petitioner as stated in the impugned order itself. It does not appear that any

¶13

inquiry whatsoever has been held nor even the reply submitted by petitioner has been considered. The order places reliance only on the allegation of petitioner having submitted fabricated documents without indication of any verification of such documents.

¶14

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order on face of it is non speaking in nature and is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to proceed afresh against petitioner, if they so desire but only after following the service rules and affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner particularly after considering his reply and verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted by him at the time of obtaining employment. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid regular salary with effect from the date impugned order was passed.

¶15

In view of aforesaid, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 prabhat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shashendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. 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

Hari Ram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Jai Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Reral Development Lko. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Mayawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Awadh Sharan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.