Allowed¶20

Sangeeta Kumari Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025WRIA/17301/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Censure entry quashed; Assistant Teacher, Primary School Tewai, Baitalpur, District Deoria; suspension dated 31.07.2025; charge sheet dated 06.08.2025 (prayer) / 07.08.2025 (body); Rules 9(4) and 10(2), Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999; Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria; notice and opportunity of hearing; non-application of mind; remand for fresh decision; reasoned and speaking order; six weeks timeline; Writ - A No. 17301 of 2025; Prakash Padia, J.; decided November 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari: impugned order dated 03.10.2025 quashed to the extent it awarded censure entry; matter remitted to respondent no.4 (District Basic Education Officer, Deoria) for fresh decision on merits by a reasoned and speaking order after notice and hearing, preferably within six weeks. ¶20

Sangeeta Kumari Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17301 of 2025

¶3

Sangeeta Kumari Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶10

Heard Mr. Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 4 and perused the records.

¶11

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶12

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria/Respondent No.4 as well as quash the entire disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 06.08.2025.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioner as Assistant Teacher of Primary School, Tewai, Baitalpur, District Deoria."

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has already joined at the transfer place, therefore, the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 is challenged to the extent of imposing censure entry.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.07.2025, thereafter charge-sheet was issued to him by the Enquiry Officer on 07.08.2025. Reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet was also submitted by the petitioner. It is further argued that without giving any notice or opportunity as required under Rule 9(4) and 10(2) of Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, the order impugned has been passed, which is non application of mind. In support of

¶16

WRIA No. 17301 of 2025

¶17

¶18

his submission, he has relied upon several judgements of this Court passed in Dharmendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Alld. & 2 Others, passed in Service Single No.4772 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2013, Raj Kamal Vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. reported in 2014 SCC Online All 13597, Dr. Ram Pujan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And 2 Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online All 1885 and Smt. Kavit Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, passed in Writ A No.15848 of 2022 decided on 31.10.2022 . Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and the same may be quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.10.2025 is quashed to the extent it awarded censure entry to the petitioner. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4- District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, for decision afresh, ignoring the delay if any, on merits, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶22

November 18, 2025 Pramod Tripathi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta Kumari Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Kumari Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Mohammad Kaleem Akhtar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Km. Radha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Renu Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anjali Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Muhammad Habib vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others