Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Pathak vs Rajeev Kumar And 5 Others on 18 December, 2023
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239215-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 789 of 2023
Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Pathak
Respondent :- Rajeev Kumar And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhay Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Pratik Srivastava,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This appeal has been instituted by the appellant along with an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 7694 of 2020.
3. The appellant before this Court was holding the office of District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad. Writ petition came to be filed by the respondents/writ petitioner Rajive Kumar Pathak and another challenging an order dated 03.07.2020 whereby their claim for financial approval was rejected. While laying challenge to order dated 03.07.2020, the respondent/petitioner also questioned the conduct of the appellant on the ground that he had passed a contrary order granting financial approval to one Rohit Pachori which was later on withdrawn. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of Rajive Kumar and another also made following observations against the appellant in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment:
"12. Before parting, this Court is constrained to observe that the order dated 04.05.2019 and 03.07.2020 has been passed by Dr. Arvind Kumar Pathak, District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad. In the similar situation, vide order dated 04.05.2019 the officer has granted approval to Rohit Pachauri and later on took a somersault and vide order dated 03.07.2020 has disapproved the selection of the petitioners which is not in normal stride and appears to be deliberate. This Court expects the higher officials to look into the matter and initiate enquiry against Dr. Arvind Kumar Pathak, District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, and submit the report to this Court within three months."
4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was not impleaded in his personal capacity nor was he confronted with the issue of contrary orders being passed in the matter of Rohit Pachori.
5. Our attention has been invited to order dated 30.08.2019 passed by District Basic Education Officer, passed by the appellant in his capacity as District Basic Education Officer which clearly records that Rohit Pachori had obtained financial approval on the strength of misrepresentation and fabrication of records, which facts had subsequently come to the notice of the authorities and that is why the financial approval granted 04.05.2019 was revoked on 30.08.2019.
6. The fact with regard to passing of order dated 30.08.2019 was not brought before the learned Single Judge. It is therefore, urged that the direction contained in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment is uncalled for and the observations in that regard are liable to be expunged.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner, does not dispute the fact that detailed facts with regard to the revocation of financial approval granted to Rohit Pachori was not placed before the learned Single Judge. It is also not in issue that the officer was not put to any notice with regard to his conduct in passing contrary orders and in its absence, proper explanation with regard to reasons for revocation of financial approval was not highlighted.
8. In such circumstances, we find substance in the grievance raised by the appellant in the present appeal. It is admitted that the appellant was neither arrayed as a party in his individual capacity neither his conduct was specifically the subject matter of the issue before the learned Single Judge.
9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the observations made in paragraph no. 12 of the judgment could have been avoided.
10. In such circumstance, we interfere with the order dated 30.11.2022, in so far as observations are made against the appellant in his individual capacity and expunge paragraph no. 12 of the judgment from the face of record.
11. The special appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 18.12.2023
Ved Prakash
