Allahabad High Court
Ram Janam Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94190
RESERVED
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14139 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ram Janam Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Pandey, Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Archana Singh
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"(A) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.01.2008 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 23.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexures 11 & 6) to this writ petition.
(B) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to remit the petitioner to work in the institution as the rest of Headmaster at Baisahukhari and not interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioner as Primary Pathshala Baisahukhari, Block- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra.
(C) ...........
(D) .........."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution of Primary Vidyalaya, Baisahukhuri on 26.06.1995 and joined his services on 01.07.1995. Thereafter, on the basis of work and conduct of the petitioner being satisfactory, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Headmaster by order dated 10.12.2003. Some complaint was filed against the petitioner in which pursuance, the salary of the petitioner was stopped and the notice was given to the petitioner, but nothing was heard. He further submits that the matter was also published in the newspaper and thereafter, the order dated 23.10.2006 was passed holding that the Intermediate Mark-sheet could not be verified from the board and therefore, services of the petitioner were terminated against which the petitioner filed an appeal. In the ground of appeal, in para no.9, specific ground was taken that the petitioner has passed intermediate examination in 1974 from U.P. Board and not in the year 1973 and therefore, the ground has been taken that the intermediate certificate is not correct from which the verification was made, but without considering the same, the appeal was also rejected. He next submits that once the fact was brought to the notice of the appellate court, it ought to have got verified as to whether the petitioner passed his intermediate examination in the year 1974 or 1973 and then, the impugned order should have been passed. He further submits that the impugned order is bad as no verification has been done. He further submits that without adopting the disciplinary proceedings or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the termination order was passed, which is bad and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 12886 of 2021 decided on 24.11.2022 as well as in Special Appeal Defective No. 110 of 2014 decided on 31.01.2014 specifically referring paragraph Nos. 4 & 7 thereof. He prays for allowing of the present writ petition.
5. Per contra, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has himself filled the form of verification along with records and in column-4 of the said form, he mentioned his educational qualification where the passing year of intermediate has been mentioned as 1973 bearing Roll No. 196194, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-1 at page no.10 to the counter affidavit. She further submits that once the petitioner himself has filled the verification form and filed the documents along with the same, the petitioner cannot turned around, submitting in the rejoinder affidavit that by mistake, passing year of intermediate examination has been mentioned as 1973 instead of 1974. She next submits that the verification form is very simple and such a mistake cannot be condoned. She further submits that the petitioner is a teacher whose carelessness cannot be condoned.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in passed in Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013, decided on 30.05.2013. She further submits that it is incorrect on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner to argue that neither any notice was given nor any opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 23.10.2006 while the notice was given to him, but the petitioner did not appear and thereafter, the notice was published in the newspaper, but even then the petitioner choose not to appear and therefore, the authorities were compelled to pass an ex-parte order against the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher and on verification of the educational certificates, it was found that in the intermediate mark-sheet of the petitioner, the name of the parent were different from the entries has been shown by him therefore, the forged mark-sheet has been filed by the petitioner. Further, the same view has also been taken in appeal while rejecting. Furthermore, the record reveals that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on a different ground; whereas on appeal, a new ground was taken that name of parent mentioned therein are different. Before drawing any adverse inference against the petitioner, neither any notice was given nor any opportunity to rebut the same, nor any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner.
9. In view of the above, impugned orders cannot sustain and the same are hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority to decide the same afresh within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 24.05.2024
Pravesh Mishra/-
