Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81543
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1827 of 2022
Petitioner :- Gaurav Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Mr. Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.12.20221 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District- Jhansi (Annexure No.13 to this writ petition)
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to attached at the petitioner to to any Junior High School within the Block Badagaon, District- Jhansi considering the Medical requirements of the petitioner until the respondents undertake to exercise internal transfers/adjustment, within the district.
(iii) .....
(iv) ....."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 04.08.2010 in Primary School in District- Jalaun, run and managed by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj. Thereafter, on 01.06.2015, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster. He further submits that the complaint was made against the petitioner with regard to irregularities in the institution to which the petitioner submitted his reply, which has been rejected on 31.03.2021 by the District Magistrate concerned against which, the petitioner preferred Writ- A No. 11048 of 2021, which was consigned to record on 02.09.2021 with an observation that as and when the respondents undertake to exercise for inter-district transfer, claim of the petitioner shall also be dealt with. He next submits that against the enquiry, the petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner, Jhansi for appropriate enquiry and action in respect of his complaint of irregularities, and they directed by order dated 01.12.2021 to the District Magistrate, Jhansi to get the matter inquired. In pursuance thereof, Chief Veterinary Officer, Jhansi conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 15.12.2021. On the other hand, District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi constituted a three members committer to reply the matter and submitted the report on 17.12.2021. On the basis of said report dated 17.12.2021, the District Basic Education Officer, submitted a report dated 22.12.2021 before the Commissioner, Jhansi, Division Jhansi. In the meantime, the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer without adopting due process as neither any show cause notice for giving major/minor punishment nor any opportunity of personal hearing/representation, imposed the penalty of censure against the petitioner.
4. He further submits that specific pleadings have been made in para nos 38 & 42 of the present writ petition, which have not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-BSA. He next submits that the specific procedure has been laid down in the Act, which has not been followed. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the appropriate enquiry was done and the allegations found correct. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed.
6. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. A short submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that there was a gross violation of principle of natural justice as neither the petitioner has been given copy of the enquiry report dated 17.12.2021 nor any show cause notice for imposing the major/minor penalty, nor provided any opportunity of hearing to him. The said fact has specifically been mentioned in para nos. 38 & 42, which has been replied in the counter affidavit of paragraph nos. 22 & 25, but the said fact has not been denied.
8. In view of the above stated fact, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of personal hearing, enquiry report, notice, which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. The issue in hand with regard to principle of natural justice, is covered by various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot sustain on this ground alone and the same is hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding the issue afresh by passing speaking and reasoned order within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Pravesh Mishra
