Santosh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 165 of 2026

Santosh Kumar Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

ucaon .. o. n	ers		.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anurag Rathore	Misra,	Anshuman	Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw prayer clause (i) of the writ petition.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission aforesaid.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid, prayer is allowed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to strike off prayer clause (i) from the prayers made in the petition and prayer clauses (ii) to (vii) are repositioned as clauses (i) to (vi). This shall be incorporated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of day.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶14

Notice to respondent no.5 is dispensed with as the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

¶15

Under challenge are the orders dated 15.11.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools-respondent no.4, and the consequential orders thereof, i.e., 17.11.2025 and 10.12.2025.

¶16

Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 has been passed only on the basis of audit report, which is impermissible under law. He submitted that in the matter of

¶17

WRIA No. 165 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

identically situated teachers, this Court has passed the final order in Writ-A No.11736 of 2025 on 9.10.2025, wherein such order has been quashed. The order dated 9.10.2025 passed in the aforementioned writ petition is extracted as under:-

¶20

"At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to delete prayer clause (c) of the petition at this stage.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the submission aforesaid.

¶22

The prayer is allowed.

¶23

He is permitted to delete the prayer clause (c) during the course of day.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶25

Notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is hereby dispensed with, as the matter is decided at the admission stage.

¶26

Challenge is laid to the order dated 15th of September 2025 issued by respondent no.3 whereby the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner on 9th of November 2017 has been withdrawn and the direction is also made to recover the excess amount.

¶27

Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) fell vacant in the year 1994 due to ad hoc promotion granted to one Raghubar Singh to the post of ad hoc Lecturer. The said post subsequently fell vacant after retirement of Raghubar Singh on 30th June 1996. He submitted that a request was sent by the respondent no.5 to the Service Selection Board for filling the post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) on 13th of July 1995, and subsequently, on 14th of October 1995, an advertisement was issued and thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed on 3rd of November 1995. He submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularised and after regularisation of services, the petitioner was drawing salary in grade pay 4800 and he was granted selected grade of Rs.66000/- vide order dated 22nd of March 2016. He further submitted that the petitioner was also granted the promotional pay scale of Rs.1560039100/5400 with effect from 9th November 2017 but all of sudden, noticing an audit report, the District Inspector of Schools, vide impugned order, has withdrawn the promotional pay scale.

¶28

WRIA No. 165 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only on the basis of audit report, the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn, which is impermissible under law. He further submitted that while passing the order impugned, the petitioner has not been associated and, as such, the order impugned dated 15th of September 2025 is adversely affecting the petitioner. He submitted that not only the promotional pay scale has been withdrawn but the alleged excessive payment made to the petitioner after the order dated 9th November 2017, has been directed to be recovered. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 15th of September 2025 is unlawful and unsustainable.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has rightly considered the audit report and once it is found that there are certain irregularities while granting promotional pay scale, the same has been withdrawn.

¶32

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the promotional pay scale to the petitioner was granted in the year 2017 and on the basis of an audit report, the impugned order has been passed whereby the order of promotional pay scale has been withdrawn. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing prior passing the order impugned.

¶33

This Court finds that the promotional pay scale has been granted seven years ago, and this materially affects the rights of the petitioner, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is must. This court has also noticed that only on the basis of audit report, the order impugned has been passed, which is impermissible as per the law settled in the case of Dilip Singh Rana Vs State of UP, reported in 1993 SCC OnLine All 455. Paras 5 and 6 of the Judgment are quoted hereinunder:-

¶34

"5. The audit report could not be used as substantive evidence of the genuineness or bona fide nature of the transactions referred to in the accounts. Audit is official examination of the accounts in order to make sure that the accounts have been properly maintained according to the prescribed mode. Audit report is a statement of facts pertaining to the maintenance of accounts coupled with the opinion of the Auditor in respect thereof based on those facts. In "A Concise Dictionary of Law" (Oxford University Press) it is stated that an auditor's report must state whether or not in the auditor's opinion, the accounts have been properly prepared and given a true and fair view of the Company's financial position. If the audit shows that the accounts are not properly maintained, it may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of

¶35

WRIA No. 165 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

even belief that some wrong has been committed in respect of the matters to which the accounts relate. But the commission of that wrong cannot be proved by the opinion of the Auditors contained in the audit report.

¶38

6. It has to be proved like any other fact by relevant and admissible evidence. In words and Phrases, Volume IV-A, it is stated at page 577 that "Audit" means formal examination and verification of accounts, vouchers and other records and the result of such an examination. The duty of an Auditor is verification and not detection (see in re: Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No. 2), (1896) 2 Ch 279). In Halsbury's Laws of England the duty and function of an Auditor appointed to audit the accounts of a Company are described in the following words:-

¶39

"It is the duty of an Auditor to verify not merely the arithmetical accuracy of the balance-sheet, but its susbstantial accuracy and to see that it includes the particulars required by the articles and the statute, and contains a correct representation of the state of the Company's affairs. While, therefore, it is not his duty to consider whether the business is prudently conducted, he is bound to consider and report to the shareholders whether the balance-sheet shows the true financial position of the Company. To see this, he must examine the books and take reasonable care to see that their contents are substantially accurate."

¶40

Thus, it is settled law that only on the basis of audit report, unless corroborated by other evidence, no adverse proceedings can be drawn.

¶41

For the forgoing reasons and submissions, the order dated 15th of September 2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby quashed.

¶42

The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to take a fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders, if any, within a period of sixty days, from the date of this order.

¶43

The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings initiated by the District Inspector of Schools concerned.

¶44

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed."

¶45

Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit, as has been provided in the order dated 9.10.2025.

¶46

WRIA No. 165 of 2026

¶47

5

¶48

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission aforesaid.

¶49

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools-respondent no.4, is hereby quashed. Consequential orders, if any, shall stand quashed.

¶50

The District Inspector of Schools-respondent no.4 is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the other stakeholders, if any, within 60 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶51

The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings initiated by the District Inspector of Schools concerned.

¶52

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed.

¶53

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶54

January 12, 2026 Ram Murti

¶55

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

Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 4 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kali Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Shruti Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education and 5 Others

Bikash Pachambhawala and 4 Others vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and 5 Others

Virendra Kumar and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Kumar Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

Prem Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and 9 Others