Partly allowed

Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Special Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025WRIA/13985/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed three dismissal orders against an Assistant Teacher. The Court held that the State could not dismiss the petitioner without initiating proceedings under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as promised in the initial show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 25.04.2019, 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019 were quashed.

Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13985 of 2019

Vinay Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru Special Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow And Ors. .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pushpila Bisht, Abhishek Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Ran Vijay Singh

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

¶10

From a perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the petitioner, who claims to be a validly appointed Assistant Teacher, was issued with a show cause notice dated 04.03.2015 whereby he was required to submit a reply within fifteen days and it was provided that in case the reply was not found satisfactory or the same is not received then action under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") shall be taken.

¶11

The petitioner submitted his reply and after consideration, it was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2019, 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019, but no proceedings under the Rules, 1999 has been conducted.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 have been unable to controvert the averments made in the show cause notice dated 04.03.2015 but submit that the proceedings under the Rules, 1999 were not adopted as marksheet of B.ed that had been given by the petitioner, was itself found to be fake and thus, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner from service.

¶13

In view of the above, it emerges that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher, he has been issued with a show cause notice dated

¶14

WRIA No. 13985 of 2019

¶15

¶16

17.01.2020 ,whereby he was required to submit a reply within fifteen days failing which, action under the Rules, 1999. Despite the petitioner having submitted his reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory, instead of proceeding under the Rules, 1999, the respondents have straightaway dismissed the petitioner from service, vide order dated 25.04.2019, 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019.

¶17

Once the respondents have themselves professed in the show cause notice dated 04.03.2015 that in case the petitioner failed to submit his reply within fifteen days or his reply would be found unsatisfactory, then proceedings under Rules, 1999 shall be taken, then there was no occasion for the respondents to have straightaway dismissed him from service, without proceeding under the Rules, 1999 more particularly when the petitioner had submitted his reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the modus adopted by the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service, without professing what had been indicated in the show cause notice dated 04.03.2015, clearly cannot be countenanced the law. Incidentally the show cause notice dated 04.03.2015 still continues to stand and has neither been cancelled or withdrawn.

¶18

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is p artly allowed. The orders impugned dated 25.04.2019, 03.05.2019 and 09.05.2019, copy of which is annexure nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively, is quashed.

¶19

Consequences to follow.

¶20

However, it would be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶21

December 4, 2025

¶22

Mayank

¶23

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Special Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Special Secy.Basic Edu. Lucknow and Ors.

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

Ruqaiya Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.of Up Lko.and Ors.

Anushekhar and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lucknow and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Minu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu. Up Govt. Lucknow and Others

Rameshwar Prasad Vs U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru M.D. and Others

Vimal Yadav Vs State of U.P.Thru Spl. Secy.Deptt of Basic Edu. LKOandORS.