Allahabad High Court
Shiv Chand vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 July, 2012
Bench: V.K. Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36375 of 2012
Petitioner :- Shiv Chand
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- J.P. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent No.3.
Each one of the respondents is accorded six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.
List thereafter.
It has been contended on behalf the petitioner that in the past order of dismissal had been passed by the Principal and the said order had been affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ petition No.5885 of 2000 before this Court and this Court on 10.08.2009 proceeded to set aside the dismissal order as well as appellate order, and gave liberty to the respondents to hold fresh inquiry in accordance with law and pass order accordingly. Petitioner submits that thereafter the Principal of the institution proceeded to get the enquiry conducted and in this regard he appointed one Ram Dhani Yadav as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner submits that the said Ram Dhani Yadav was member of the Committee of Management of the institution; in view of this the petitioner objected to his being appointed as Inquiry Officer and requested the District Inspector of Schools to intervene in the matter and get the Inquiry Officer changed. Petitioner further submits that the Inqjuiry Officer, as requested by him, was not changed and the said Inquiry Officer submitted report on 07.06.2012. Said report proceeds to mention that three letters had been issued to the petitioner to have his say in the matter, but he did not appear, as such it was presumed that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were true. On the very next day of submission of the enquiry report, the Principal of the institution again proceeded to pass the order of dismissal. Petitioner submits that in the present case full fledged procedure has been provided for concluding the enquiry and bringing the same to its logical end, but here in the present case said procedure has not at all been adhered to and requisite exercise, which ought to have been undertaken, has not been undertaken, rather on the very next day without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner once again order has been passed dispensing with his services, and thus making the earlier order redundant. In the present case, remedy of appeal is provided for before the District Inspector of Schools against the order passed by the Principal of the institution, but as full fledged procedure provided for under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 has not
been adhered to, as such relegating the petitioner to the appellate forum will be an exercise in futility.
Prima facie the procedure as provided for under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 have been breached, as such till the next date of listing operation of the impugned order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the Principal of the institution is directed to be kept in abeyance.
Order Date :- 27.7.2012
SRY
