Disposed

Mohammad Muzammil Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024WRIA/7386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension order and charge sheet as Assistant Teacher in a madarsa, arguing opposite parties lacked jurisdiction. Court prima facie accepted submissions and stayed the impugned orders pending counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 18th May 2023 and charge sheet dated 10th July 2023 stayed pending filing of counter affidavit.

Mohammad Muzammil Akhtar vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7386 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Muzammil Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Minority Welfare Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghulam Mohammad Kamil Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui,Rishabh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sandeep Dixit learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G.M. Kamil learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3, Mr. Arun Kumar Singh Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Rishabh Tripathi learned counsel for opposite party No.2, Mr. Afzal Siddiqui learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 and Mr. M.G. Tripathi as well as Mr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak learned counsels for opposite party No.5 whose power filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Petition has been filed challenging suspension order dated 18th May, 2023 whereby petitioner while posted as Assistant Teacher (Alia) in the madarsa concerned has been suspended from service. Also under challenge is the charge sheet dated 10th July, 2023. The primary submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the opposite parties lack any jurisdiction whatsoever either to suspend petitioner or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this court in Writ A No. 10967 of 2022 , Arshad Javed Khan versus State of U.P. and others was well as judgement rendered by Division bench in Special Appeal No. 573 of 2022. It is submitted that both the judgments have placed reliance on Regulation 16 of Uttar Pradesh Non Governmental Arabic and Parsian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation 2016 to submit that the aforesaid provisions along with Section 24 of the U.P. Madarsa Shiksha Parishad Act 2004 were considered by this court whereafter it has been held that disciplinary action taken and punishment orders passed as consequence thereof against teaching and non teaching staff of the Madarsa can be only in accordance with duly approved Scheme of Administration. He has also adverted to the government orders dated 7th January, 2022 and 10th January, 2022 issued in pursuance thereof stipulating that any disciplinary action taken against teaching and non teaching staff of madarsa without approval of scheme of administration would be void. It is submitted that the same reasoning has thereafter been upheld in special appeal. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the letter dated 8th October, 2022 issued by the Manager of the institute in which it has been indicated that salary for the month of October, 2022 onwards has been stopped pending directions issued by the State Government.

¶7

It is submitted that the aforesaid letter was thereafter challenged by petitioner in Writ A No. 7780 of 2022 in which vide interim order dated 21st November, 2022, after noticing submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, it was directed that salary for the period of October and November, 2022 shall be paid to petitioner. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, salary for the aforesaid two months was paid to the petitioner but has again thereafter been stopped.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5 has on the other hand submitted that serious charges of fraud and manipulation were levelled against petitioner as would be evident from the charge sheet and it is in these circumstances that the impugned orders have been passed particularly since fraud and justice do not well together.

¶9

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which opposite parties are granted time to file counter affidavit.

¶10

Three weeks time is granted for filing of counter affidavit.

¶11

List this case on 30th September along with Writ A No. 7780 of 2022. Office is directed to print the name of Mr. M.G. Tripathi and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak as learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶12

Until further orders of this court, further operation of suspension order dated 18th May, 2023 and charge sheet dated 10th July, 2023 shall remain stayed.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 prabhat

¶14

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

Mohammad Muzammil Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Muzammil Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare Lko. and 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

Rakesh Ram Nihore Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Raj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumari Gangaprasad Sharma @ Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Acs/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Krishna Mohan Shukla and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Higher Secondary Edu. Lko. and Others

Tufail Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another