Allahabad High Court
Madan Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 5 January, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1173
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9974 of 2023
Petitioner :- Madan Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Ajay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh,Rishabh Tripathi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.4
2. Petitioner is granted liberty to implead the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj as opposite party No.5 during course of day. Notice on behalf of newly impleaded opposite party has been accepted by Mr. Ranvijay Singh Advocate.
3. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.
4. Under challenge is the order dated 8.4.2022 terminating services of petitioner on the ground that petitioner had obtained appointment in the year 2010 on the basis of forged documents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appointed after following due process of selection and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 7.8.2010 along with many other candidates. It has been submitted that after appointment of petitioner, the documents were verified and even otherwise, there was no occasion for opposite parties to have revisited the petitioner's appointment after the period of twelve years when he has already got vested right for continuance in service. It has further been submitted that the order impugned has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and even without conducting any inquiry as is contemplated under Service Rule applicable upon the petitioner.
6. Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that proper show cause notice was given to the petitioner not once but twice to which he did not reply due to which the opposite party had no option but to terminate his services after considering the report submitted by officers concerned.
7. However, considering the material available on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is evident that the order impugned has been passed after a period of 12 years of services of petitioner. The order does not indicate any departmental inquiry to have taken place with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is settled that even if the delinquent employee does not reply or wish to participate in the inquiry proceeding, the department on its own has to establish the charges levelled against the employee. The aforesaid activity having not been done in the present case renders the impugned order unsustainable.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 to submit that it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have conducted enquiry proceedings prior to termination of petitioner's services even if allegation that petitioner was not willing to participate, is true.
9. In view of aforesaid, writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 8.4.2022 at the admission stage itself granting liberty to opposite party to pass fresh orders after conducting a proper departmental inquiry in the matter and adhering to principles of natural justice as well granting opportunity to the petitioner as provided in Service Rules.
10. For the aforesaid purpose, petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid salary for the post that he was holding, which shall be subject to final order to be passed in the inquiry proceeding.
11. 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 :- 5.1.2024
prabhat
