Rahul Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground exists for interference with the order dated 26.12.2024 issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya requiring initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Instructions obtained from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya dated 20.01.2025 show that complaints against the petitioner were received from Vijay Krishnan, Anubhav Singh and Sri Akhilesh Singh and, upon being verified, were found true, in consequence whereof the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 initiating disciplinary proceedings was passed.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it pertains to the challenge raised to the orders dated 24.06.2024 and 25.06.2024.

Key takeaways

Considering prima facie serious allegations levelled against the petitioner emerging from perusal of the order dated 26.12.2024, no ground for interference is made out; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 456 of 2025 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 5) | Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. | Order dated 22.1.2025. Rahul Prajapati challenged the order dated 26.12.2024 issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya requiring initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, contending that it rested on an anonymous complaint dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure-9) to which the order did not even refer. At the outset, counsel withdrew relief (i) challenging the orders dated 24.06.2024 and 25.06.2024 (Annexures 2 and 3), and the petition was dismissed as not pressed on that portion. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 16.01.2025, instructions dated 20.01.2025 were obtained from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya showing that complaints against the petitioner had been received from Vijay Krishnan, Anubhav Singh and Sri Akhilesh Singh and, upon verification, were found true, leading to the impugned order. Finding prima facie serious allegations against the petitioner emerging from the order dated 26.12.2024, the Court held that no ground for interference was made out and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner free to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. No relief was granted to the petitioner.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4185

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 456 of 2025

Petitioner :- Rahul Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Yadav

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to press on with the relief (i) so far as it raises a challenge to the orders dated 24.06.2024 and 25.06.2024, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the petition.

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it pertains to challenge raised to the orders dated 24.06.2024 and 25.06.2024.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5, and Sri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

Under challenge is the order dated 26.12.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, wherein disciplinary proceedings have been required to be initiated against the petitioner by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ayodhya.

The sheet anchor of the challenge raised to the order dated 26.12.2024 is a complaint dated 14.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, which is said to be an anonymous complaint and on the basis of which the order impugned dated 26.12.2024 has been issued.

Apart from the fact that the order impugned dated 26.12.2024 does not even refer to the complaint dated 14.05.2024 which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner, the other aspect is that this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 had required learned counsel for respondent no.6 to seek instructions in the matter which instructions have been obtained by Sri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6, from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ayodhya dated 20.01.2025 per which he states that the complaints against the petitioner have been received from Sri

Vijay Krishnan, Anubhav Singh and Sri Akhilesh Singh which upon being verified have been found to be true and in consequence thereof, the order impugned dated 26.12.2024 has been passed pertaining to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid as well as prima facie serious allegations as have been levelled against the petitioner as emerge from perusal of the order dated 26.12.2024 no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against him.

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 A. Katiyar

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench