Allahabad High Court
Yashwant Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. ... on 5 December, 2017
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora, Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 2018 of 2011
Petitioner :- Yashwant Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.,Vocational & Technical Educa
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, learned counsel for petitioner.
The petitioner has approached to this Court challenging the order dated 07.06.2011 passed by Authorized Controller, M.G. Polytechnic, Hathras whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service while working on the post of Principal of M.G. Polytechnic, Hathras, district Mahamaya Nagar on the grounds, namely, as per the Regulation 33(7) along with Regulation 41 of the U.P. Technical Educational Institutions Regulations, 1996 an enquiry against the sitting Principal of the institution can only be made by the Chairman of the Committee of Management and in case there is no Chairman available then, the Authorized Controller and thus the appointment of Additional District Magistrate as an Enquiry Officer in the instant enquiry is against the provisions of the said regulations as the entire enquiry has been conducted by incompetent person. Other ground is regarding violation of principles of natural justice as no record or document relied in support of the charge sheet were ever made available to the petitioner and no date, time and place were fixed by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry and the enquiry report has been submitted only on the basis of the Audit Report which cannot be relied as evidence in support of the charge and on the basis of which the charge has been proved against the petitioner and resulted in passing of the impugned dismissal order.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the impugned dismissal order had approached to the Board of Technical Education, U.P. (opposite party no.5) by means of appeal under Regulation 33(5). But no action had been taken, hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by means of the present writ petition.
Counter affidavit has been filed on 4.9.2012 on behalf of State authorities wherein the pendency of appeal has been admitted.
We have examined the issue and are of the considered view that since the appeal is pending before the Board of Technical Education, U.P., Lucknow, therefore, opposite party no.5 is directed to examine the grounds taken in appeal in accordance with law and while deciding the appeal the issue of filing appeal with delay will not be taken into consideration and decide the appeal of petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the decision of the appellate authority be placed on record of this writ petition along with supplementary counter affidavit.
List this case on 15.01.2018.
Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman of the Board of Technical Education, U.P., Lucknow.
Order Date :- 5.12.2017
psd
