Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Deoria.

¶13

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for respondent-BSA regarding availability of an alternative remedy. However, answering the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, alternative remedy is not a bar in the view of the settled position of law.

¶14

Placing the facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was demoted by the punishment order dated 15.09.2015 from the post of Headmaster to Assistant Teacher, challenged the same by way of filing an appeal which came to be rejected vide order dated 28.12.2016. Challenging the punishment order dated 15.09.2015 and order passed in appeal dated 28.12.2016, a Writ Petition No.32046 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.05.2025 after quashing the aforesaid orders and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental proceedings by

¶15

WRIA No. 1561 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

forwarding a copy of the inquiry report along with fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, who in turn was directed to submit a reply within a period of three weeks and, thereafter, the proceedings were to be concluded within a period of six weeks.

¶18

It is further submitted that when nothing was done, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition, thereafter, a fresh notice dated 04.11.2025 was issued to the petitioner, along with which two inquiry reports dated 20.12.2011 and 30.01.2015 were given to the petitioner. The aforesaid was received by the petitioner on 10.11.2025, pursuant to which he submitted a detailed reply on 26.11.2025, after which the order impugned has been passed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the conclusion no reasons for not believing the explanation of the petitioner has been given, therefore, the order impugned is arbitrary. He further submits that in case the disciplinary authority/District Basic Education Officer, Deoria was not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner or the fact that details of the documents on which the petitioner was relying while submitting an application were not there, a proper inquiry as provided under Rule 7 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999, should have been followed, which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order stands in violation of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules, hence, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent BSA could not satisfactorily explain as to why the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate, at this stage, to remit the matter back to respondent no.3 i.e., the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to decide the same afresh in a routine manner.

¶21

In these special circumstances, where the earlier writ petition was pending since 2017 and came to be decided in the year 2025 remitting back the matter to be decided afresh, the Court is left with

¶22

WRIA No. 1561 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

no option but to call upon respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, to appear before this Court along with a personal affidavit on 31.03.2026.

¶25

Accordingly, respondent no.3 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Deoria, is directed to remain present before this Court on 31.03.2026 along with a personal affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the impugned order has been passed.

¶26

Put up as fresh on 31.03.2026.

¶27

Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondentBSA as well as Registrar (Compliance) shall look into compliance of this aforesaid order.

¶28

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶29

March 19, 2026 Rahul.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jay Narain Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sapna Arya vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gurdeep Kaur Bakshi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalta Singh and 15 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt. Gunjan Mani Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others