Allahabad High Court
Noor Amreen vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. ... on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14959 of 2020
Petitioner :- Noor Amreen
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 and Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4.
Petition has been filed against order dated 03.01.2020 terminating services of petitioner on the ground that she had procured appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged documents. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that no departmental inquiry as contemplated by service regulations and various judgments of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been made. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it clear that even the version of petitioner has not been adverted to at all in the impugned order. It is further submitted that petitioner is a confirmed employee and could not have been terminated in such a cursory and arbitrary manner without resorting to departmental proceedings or without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner had been appointed in the year 2016 and has continued in service for the last four years after due verification of documents at the initial stage itself.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was issued show cause notices twice but chose not to participate or to reply. As such there was no option before the appointing authority to terminate the services of petitioner. It is submitted that termination order has been passed after due verification of documents.
Upon consideration of material on record and submission advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent from perusal of the impugned order that it contains only a one sided version of the authority. There is no mention of any charge sheet having been issued to petitioner or any departmental inquiry having been held to prove the charges against the petitioner. Clearly the order impugned has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice or even the service regulations which contemplate inquiry proceedings before terminating a confirmed employee. As such the order impugned is unsustainable.
Consequently, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 03.01.2020 granting liberty to the opposite parties to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if they so desire but only after following due procedure of departmental inquiry and adhering to principles of natural justice as contemplated in service regulations pertaining to petitioner. Consequently, petitioner shall be reinstated in service and paid salary, which shall be subject to final outcome of enquiry, if any.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
kvg/-
