Allowed

Rita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024WRIA/163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order terminating a petitioner's appointment due to alleged fabrication of documents. Finding a violation of natural justice through non-provision of complaint/documents and non-consideration of her reply, the court set aside the order and directed the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.11.2023 quashed; liberty granted to pass fresh orders after affording effective opportunity of hearing.

Rita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4577

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 163 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.11.2023 whereby petitioner's initial appointment on the post of Headmaster has been cancelled thereby terminating her services on the ground that she had obtained appointment on the basis of false and fabricated documents.

¶8

Since the soundness of the impugned order is to be tested in accordance with the reasoning indicated therein as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 851, this petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit since only a plea of violation of principles of nature justice has been taken by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶9

It has been submitted that in pursuance of a show cause notice issued to petitioner, she submitted a reply on 03.09.2023 specifically taking a plea that relevant documents in support of allegation levelled against her had not been provided inasmuch as neither a copy of the complaint nor the original documents submitted by her with the department at the time of appointment was provided to her. It has also been stated that certain letters relied upon by the department were also not provided to her. The letter therefore makes demand with regard to production of the said documents in order to provide her in effective opportunity to give a reply to the show cause notice.

¶10

It is however submitted that neither with the documents were provided to petitioner nor was her reply ever considered by the disciplinary authority.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of the inquiry report will make it evident that a detailed inquiry has been held with regard to allegations levelled against petitioner who herself chose not to participate in the proceedings after her reply dated 03.09.2023. It is submitted that many efforts were made by the department to effect service upon petitioner for her participation in the inquiry proceedings but she has steadfastly refused to participate due to which the opposite parties have passed the impugned orders.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the reply dated 03.09.2023, inquiry report and the impugned order, it is quite evident that petitioner in her reply had specifically stated that she has not been provided copies of the complaint nor were her original documents returned to her in order to make an effective reply to the show cause notice. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 to 4 on the basis of instructions has submitted that the aforesaid documents could not be provided to petitioner since she failed to participate in the proceedings. Nonetheless, it is quite evident that relevant documents have not been provided to petitioner. Neither the inquiry report nor even the impugned order indicates effective consideration of reply submitted by petitioner.

¶13

In view of aforesaid, it is quite evident that impugned order dated 18.11.2023 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and providing her copies of complaint and the original documents which had earlier been submitted by her to the department. Such a process shall be completed within a period of two weeks. Reply shall be submitted by petitioner within a period of 15 days thereafter. The opposite parties shall conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from the date petitioner is required to submit her reply. It is needless to observe that such a time frame shall be subject to co-operation by petitioner in the inquiry proceedings.

¶14

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Satish

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M, Thru. Manager, Gayatri Devi Public Inter College, Sultanpur and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Managing Director /Chief Executive Officer Union Bank of India Mumbai Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shyam Kumari Group of Pharmacy College, Prayagraj Thru. Manager Devendra Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lucknow and Others

Shivaraman Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and Another

Sarita Singh vs D.M. Gonda and Another

Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Nagar Vikas Lko. and Anr.