Allowed

Awadhesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2025SPLA/130/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging cancellation of a basic education teacher's appointment on grounds of a manipulated marksheet. The Division Bench held that an ex parte inquiry with recorded witness statements was mandatory under Rule 7(X) of the 1999 Rules even without a reply to the charge-sheet; none was conducted, so the termination was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order dated 14.02.2025 set aside; termination treated as charge-sheet; fresh inquiry under the Rules of 1999 directed; appellant to remain under suspension meanwhile.

Awadhesh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34946-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 130 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Awadhesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No.1882 of 2025, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of remedy under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the disciplinary authority has been passed without conducting any inquiry as was required in terms of the U.P. Government Servant (Regulation and Appeal Rules) 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1999"). It is submitted that even if no reply to the charge-sheet was submitted even then holding of an inquiry was necessary. Learned counsel otherwise submits that the charge-sheet itself was not served upon the petitioner and his appointment has been cancelled straight away. Submission is that fair procedure has not been followed while passing the order impugned and the action since is in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice as such the alternative remedy cannot be a bar in entertainment of the writ.

¶8

The petition is opposed by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, who appears for the District Basic Education Officer, Basti. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the other authorities. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶9

The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti. This order records that petitioner had obtained appointment on the strength of manipulated marksheet and that his appointment is based on fraudulent documents. The petitioner was accordingly placed under suspension on 11.06.2024 and disciplinary action was initiated. A charge-sheet was sent by registered speed post on 21.06.2024. Since no reply was given the contents of charge-sheet

¶10

was published in daily newspapers, Dainik Jagran on 14.09.2024. Since the petitioner still had not submitted any reply the District Basic Education Officer has proceeded to hold the appellants appointment to be void ab initio.

¶11

The admitted material on record demonstrates that disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the appellant. Such inquiry was to be conducted in accordance with the Rules of 1999. In the event a reply was not given by the appellant the inquiry officer/ disciplinary authority was still required to examine the charges leveled against the petitioner and only after such inquiry an order could have been passed. This is clearly enumerated in Rule 7, which lays down the detailed procedure for holding of an inquiry even where the charged Government servant has not appeared. Rules 7(X) of the Rules of 1999 is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶12

"(X) Where the charged Government servant does not appear on the date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of the proceeding inspite of the service of the notice on him or having knowledge of the date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. In such a case the Inquiry Officer shall record the statement of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet in absence of the charged Government servant."

¶13

From the materials placed on record it is apparent that no inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer. None of the statement of witnesses were recorded nor any inquiry report has been produced or relied upon by the respondents. In such circumstances, we find that the procedure stipulated in the Rules have not been complied with. Once that be so, the order of the District Basic Education Officer holding the appointment of the appellant to be void ab initio cannot be sustained, consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed . Order passed by learned Single Judge dated 14.02.2025 is set aside.

¶14

In the facts of the case, the order of termination passed by the District Basic Education Officer holding the appointment of the petitioner to be void ab initio shall be treated as a charge-sheet to which a reply would be submitted by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. The District Basic Education Officer shall get fresh inquiry conducted in the matter in accordance with the Rules of 1999, whereafter it will be open for the authorities to pass a fresh order.

¶15

Since the appellant had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2009 and has been working for the last merely 15 years the manner in which his appointment has been declared void ab initio without holding a proper inquiry, despite such disciplinary action having

¶16

been initiated by the employer itself, cannot be countenanced.

¶17

Till such a fresh inquiry is conducted in accordance with the Rules the petitioner would be treated to be continuing under suspension. The question of payment of salary etc., would abide by the final outcome of the order to be passed by the authority concerned in terms of the above direction.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 A Gautam

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Awadhesh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State of Up and 2 Others vs State Public Service Tribunal and Another

Mahant Bharat Das vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manmohan Dwivwdi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maya Enterprises vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwan Shankar Sharma vs Smt. Geeta Devi