Allahabad High Court
Parshuram Maurya vs State Of U.P. & Others on 1 December, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10800 of 1998
Petitioner :- Parshuram Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ali,A.K.Pandey,R.K.Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,S.K.Singh
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Director Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow, as opposite party in this case during course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri C.K.Rai, learned Standing Counsel for State.
The petitioner herein claims to have been appointed as a Clerk in the respondent institution way back on 1.7.1978. His appointment is said to have been approved by the Basic Education Officer on 8.3.1984, at that time the institution was not on grant in aid list of the State Government. Subsequently, on 7.3.1998, papers were sent to the concerned official for the purpose of bringing the institution on grant in aid. The case of the petitioner is that his name was included in the manager's return submitted for the aforesaid purpose.
On the other hand Sri Santosh Kumar Singh learned counsel for committee of management denies this fact and submits that the petitioner had already submitted his resignation on 17.2.1989 which was approved by the Basic Education Officer on 2.9.1989. The alleged approval letter of the Basic Education Officer has been annexed by the committee of management as Annexure-CA-6 to their counter affidavit. The stand of the other contesting respondents also is to the effect that the petitioner has submitted his resignation which has been accepted, therefore, in his place Sri Sant Kumar was appointed who also resigned therefore, one Tarkeshwar Prasad was appointed who is working and is being paid salary.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire story about the resignation of the petitioner is a concocted one. The two letters referred above, by the official-respondents in their counter affidavit which are said to be dated 5.10.1984 and 2.9.1989 did not relate to the petitioner at all as is evident form the information provided by the office of the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 29.5.2014. The letter dated 2.9.1989 as per the committee of management bears the No. 1518.
Submission is that petitioner was never placed under suspension, therefore reference to the letter No. 1717 dated 2.9.1989 is being one of approval of his suspension is in-explicable.
Keeping in view those anomalies, original record was summoned today.
Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the State submits that all the record relevant was burn out in a fire in respect to which a first information report was also lodged on 7.11.2001. He further submits that so far as the letter date 2.9.1989 is concerned it is numbered as 1517 and not 1518.
The letter dated 1518 of the same date pertains to a question raised in the Vidhan Sabha. Letter No. 1517 dated 2.9.1989 pertains to approval of the petitioner's suspension.
He further submits that there is no mention about the dispatch of any such letter dated 5.10.1984, as referred in the counter affidavit of the Basic Eduction Officer.
It is nobody's case that the petitioner was ever placed under suspension therefore, the reference to the letter no. 1517 dated 2.9.1989 as one of approval of petitioner's suspension is in explicable. The letter no. 1518 dated 2.9.1989 does not relate to the petitioner which puts the veracity of Annexure no. CA-6 in doubt. The letter dated 5.10.1984 was never dispatched then how is it referred in the counter affidavit of opposite parties. Prima facie this gives credence to the case of the petitioner but before forming any conclusive opinion, it is necessary to get the matter inquired further.
Considering the aforesaid factual position, it is necessary to order an inquiry into the matter, therefore, Director Education (Basic) U.P., Lucknow is directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter-
(i) As to whether petitioner's name was included in the manager's return submitted for inclusion of the institution on the grant in aid list, or not?
(ii) Whether the petitioner at any time submitted his resignation and whether the same was accepted by the Basic Education Officer vide alleged letter dated 2.9.1989, or not?
(iii) Whether any such letter approving the acceptance of alleged resignation dated 2.9.1989 was dispatched from the office of the District Basic Eduction Officer to the committee of management, or not?
(iv) Whether letter bearing no. 1517 dated 2.9.1989 pertains to the approval of the petitioner's alleged resignation, or not?
(v) Whether any letter dated 5.10.1984 was issued by the Basic Education Officer to the Institution relating to the petitioner?
The aforesaid officer shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned, who are expected to cooperate in the inquiry.
The aforesaid inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and the result of the inquiry shall be placed before this Court on the next date.
List this case peremptorily on 6th April, 2015.
Order Date :- 1.12.2014
M.A.A.
