Allahabad High Court
Sangeeta Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 February, 2019
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2981 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sangeeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Upadhyay,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta,Vikram Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4. Sri M. N. Singh, learned counsel has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no.5, which is taken on record.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that in identical controversy Writ A No.20244 of 2018 was filed and the same was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.9.2018. He further contended that against the aforesaid judgement Special Appeal No.987 of 2018 was filed by the Santosh Kumar Sharma and another. In the said special appeal the interim order was granted in favour of the appellant on 5.10.2018, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1 Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos 3 and 5 and Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.
The appellants have preferred this intra-court appeal against the order dated 29.9.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the petitioners challenging the office order dated 28.8.2018 dismissing their services as teacher of basic schools has been dismissed.
The submission of Sri Khare, learned counsel for the appellants is that in passing the impugned order the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Basic Education Civil Rules 1973 and U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1999 was not followed and simply for the reason that under some enquiry by the Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) the certificates of the petitioners were found to be fake, the impugned order has been passed. He has also placed the various interim orders in connection with the similar other matters, however, learned Single Judge in the present case has dismissed the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent may seek instructions in the matter and, if necessary, file reply to the stay application within three weeks.
Let appeal be listed after one month for admission/final disposal.
In the meantime, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 28.8.2018 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District-Jaunpur shall in abeyance, in so far as the petitioners are concerned."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order passed by this Court in Writ A No.2509 of 2019 decided on 15.2.2019. He contended that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted a reply and thereafter, order impugned has been passed. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner further contended that order impugned has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that since no procedure whatsoever has been followed before passing the order of termination hence same is liable to be set aside.
At this point of time, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two days' time to seek instructions in the matter.
Put up on 27.2.2019 in the additional cause list showing the name of Mr. M. N. Singh, learned counsel as counsel for the respondents.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019
Pramod Tripathi
