Sanjai Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19027

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1324 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Baghel,Nishchal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gopal Pandey,Ram Jeet Dubey

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officiating charge of Principal of Government Shri Durga Ji Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Azamgarh has been given vide impugned order dated 16.01.2025 in violation of Government Order dated 29.08.2024 which has modified the earlier Government Order dated 23.02.1996.

¶10

It is submitted that although as per the Government Order dated 29.08.2024, the charge was to be given to the most suitable candidate while considering the Seniority, Home District, Service Record, Qualifications and Work Experience etc., the respondent No.1 has given the charge to the respondent No.4 in an arbitrary manner ignoring the act of misconduct which includes financial irregularity and also the forgery committed by him inasmuch as in the year 2007, the respondent No.4 was selected on the post of Lecturer through Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and for that selection, he submitted experience certificate issued by the Mangala Kamla Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bihar. Regarding

¶11

that, an inquiry was initiated by the U.P. Government to ascertain the genuineness of the experience certificate wherein the college has confirmed vide its letter dated 30.05.2007 that respondent No.4 has never worked with it and thus the experience certificate was fake. He submits that due to this, the respondent No.4 was not allowed to join in the year 2007 in the aforesaid college. However, the respondent No.4 has again submitted a false experience certificate and has joined in the year 2011 on the post of Reader.

¶12

He submits that assembly questions were raised regarding using forged certificate for taking appointment in the Department of AYUSH and therefore, orders were passed to conduct an open inquiry by U.P. Vigilance Establishment by the State Government. Accordingly, open inquiry was conducted and report dated 21.10.2021 was filed and consequently, an F.I.R. bearing No.0002/2022 was registered by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment in which investigation is going on.

¶13

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that not only this, the respondent No.4 has illegally occupied residence at Allahabad and for that a recovery has been made from his salary. It is thus, submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that while giving him the officiating charge on the post of Principal of the aforesaid college the paragraph three of the Government Order dated 29.08.2024 has been kept into consideration while filing counter affidavit, the State Government has kept silence regarding the alleged forgery committed by respondent No.4 in the year 2007 when he has given the forged experience certificate to get appointment and when he was not allowed to join.

¶14

It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier a petition numbered as Writ-A No.18999/2024 (Dr. Rai Sahab Yadav vs. State of U.P. and three others) was filed by

¶15

respondent No.4 in which since there was conflicting opinion between respondent Nos.2 and 3, a direction was issued to respondent No.1-Principal Secretary Department of AYUSH to look into the matter and provide instructions on his own signatures by the next date. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said petition has become infructuous as earlier the respondent No.3 i.e. Director, Homeopathy had given the charge of Principal to respondent No.4 of this petition.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed this contention and has submitted that respondent No.4 is not an accused in the alleged F.I.R. Open inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Establishment has not been shared with the AYUSH Department. The investigation pursuant to the F.I.R. is still going on. The charge-sheet/police report is yet to be filed. So far as the inquiry for the alleged preparation of forged certificate by the petitioner in the year 2007 is concerned, learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that while filing the counter affidavit no reply has been given by the State to this allegation made by the petitioner on respondent No.4.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that in compliance of the directions passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.18999/2024, the Principal Secretary of the Department has already taken a decision pursuant to which a direction was issued for handing over the charge of the post of Principal on the basis of the Government Order dated 23.02.1996 as well as Government Order dated 29.08.2024 on the basis of seniority.

¶18

Perused the record.

¶19

It is not disputed between the parties that there is no rebuttal by the State to the allegations made against the respondent No.4 regarding the forgery committed by him in the year 2007. Investigation on the alleged forgery committed by various incumbents in the Government Shri Durga Ji Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Azamgarh by using forged

¶20

certificates is pending pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the State Government.

¶21

A perusal of the Government Order dated 29.08.2024 shows that after the Government Order dated 23.02.1996 had been passed which provided that charge of the post of Principal, if vacant, shall be provided to the Senior-most faculty member Professor/ Reader etc. the said Government Order dated 23.02.1996 appears to have been modified by the subsequent Government Order dated 29.08.2024 by which in para 3, it has been mentioned that while giving the charge, the Seniority, Home District, Service Record, Qualifications and Work Experience etc. shall be kept in mind. It further provides that charge shall not be given to any Incompetent Officer.

¶22

It appears from the record that the recovery from the respondent No.4 to the tune of Rs.3,67,780/- has been made by the State Government for not paying the house rent allowance. Pursuant to the vigilance inquiry, the F.I.R. has been registered and investigation is going on. Although, respondent No.4 is not an accused yet however, the petitioner has made specific averment regarding involvement of respondent No.4 in paragraph 25(iii) to which reply has been given in para 16 of the counter affidavit by the State wherein it has been stated that the petitioner himself has admitted that in the inquiry of U.P. Vigilance, the Vigilance Department has given a clean chit to respondent No.4. A perusal of this averment made in paragraph sixteen of the counter affidavit filed by the State appears to be totally misleading and misconceived as also false as from the record learned Standing Counsel could not show that at any point of time, petitioner has admitted that respondent No.4 has been given clean chit by the U.P. Vigilance Department.

¶23

Thus, having considered the fact that undisputedly the State

¶24

has not disputed the fact that in the year 2007, the respondent No.4 has submitted an experience certificate for being joining on the post of Lecturer after being selected and for that Government has initiated an inquiry to see the genuineness of the experience certificate and has arrived at a conclusion that experience certificate was fake. The F.I.R. regarding the fake experience certificate given in the year 2011 is also not disputed so also the fact that a recovery of sum of Rs.3,67,780/- has been made from the salary of respondent No.4 thus, after these incidents still the Government has proceeded to provide the charge on the post of Principal to the respondent No.4 which in the opinion of this Court is in defiance of the Government Order dated 29.08.2024 particularly when paragraph three provides that Service Record, Competence of the Officer shall be kept into consideration before providing charge. It further prohibits not to give charge to any Incompetent Officer and also directs to abide by the relevant Rules of the Finance Department.

¶25

It appears that while handing over charge to the respondent No.4, the serious allegations pertaining to the year 2007 against the opposite party No.4 which are admitted and substantiated by the inquiry report submitted by the State Government and the consequent F.I.R. regarding the second forgery allegedly committed by him in the year 2011 and also recovery made from his salary has not been kept into mind by the respondent No.1. Thus, the impugned order contained Annexure No.1 appears to have been passed without considering the Government Order dated 29.08.2024 and in a very casual manner only relying on the seniority of the opposite party No.4 which in the opinion of this Court is not sufficient and is erroneous.

¶26

Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

¶27

allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2025 contained in Annexure No.1 is set aside.

¶28

The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1Principal Secretary, Department of AYUSH to pass a fresh order as per law strictly in accordance with Government Order dated 29.08.2024 within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjai Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjai Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Diwakar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry Lko. and 4 Others

Deewan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Lko. and 3 Others

Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and Another

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P Addl Hief Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and Another

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Vineeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others