Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Akhtar vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4713 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohd. Akhtar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Yadav "Warsi",Amit Kumar Gupta,Pradeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ghaus Beg
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kr. Yadav "Warsi", learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. By the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.01.2021 cancelling his services on the ground that petitioner had obtained the degree of B.A. and Moallim-e-Urdu in the same year, which is illegal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed after following due process of selection as a Assistant Teacher (Urdu) by order dated 08.01.2014. After his appointment, the documents were again verified and no irregularity was found in the same. Now after seven years, the impugned order has been passed without holding a proper departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that law in this regard is well settled by a number of judgments, one of the same placed before this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772. On the basis of same, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the inquiry, no witnesses were examined on behalf of department and, therefore, none of the documents were proved by the department. Without the department properly proving its case, the inquiry committee has wrongly presumed their documents to be correct and shifted entire burden upon the petitioner. The same could not be done.
4. Sri Ghaus Begh, learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and states that proper show cause notice was given to the petitioner twice, but he could not give a specific reply and thus his appointment is cancelled after considering the reports submitted by the inquiry committee concerned.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. There is nothing on record to show that the department produced any witness proving its case before the inquiry committee. Without following due process to prove evidence, the presumption against the petitioner could not have been either by the inquiry committee or by the punishing authority.
6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 is quashed. However, looking into the facts and circumstances, liberty is granted to the department, in case it so desires, to hold fresh departmental proceedings in accordance with law and thereafter pass appropriate orders. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid his salary for the post he was holding, which shall be subject to the final order, if any, passed in the fresh inquiry proceedings.
7. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. In case opposite parties proceed with inquiry, the same shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date the petitioner has to furnish reply to the charge-sheet. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings if any.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021/Shubhankar
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
