Allahabad High Court

Madan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 February, 2025

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15001
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16645 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Madan Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitinjay Pandey,Rohit Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shad Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Sri Nitinjay Pandey along-with Sri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 3 & 4 and Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 5.

2. Vide order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.5-District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj salary of the petitioner has been stopped and subsequently respondent no.5 passed an order dated 01.10.2024 by which services of the petitioner has been terminated hence present writ petition.

3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that services has been terminated only after issuing a show cause notice and the procedure prescribed in law for termination of services has not at all been complied with before passing the aforesaid order.

4. It is admitted between the parties that the identical controversy came up beforea Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.16035 of 2024 (Priyanka Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), which was allowed vide judgement and order dated 20.12.2024. The order reads as follows :-

"Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel and Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the BSA.

By the impugned order, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the footing that the T.E.T. certificate was found to be false. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 20.06.2024 references the website of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education wherein it was recorded that the petitioner had failed in the T.E.T. examination. Admittedly, a written confirmation regarding the authenticity of the education certificates pertaining to the T.E.T. submitted to the petitioner at the point of appointment was not obtained from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education prior to passing the impugned order. There is no certification from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education that the entries made on the website have been duly updated after thorough enquiry and reconciliation of records. A written report in regard to the authenticity of the marksheet was subsequently issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education on 17.10.2024 i.e. after the termination order was passed. Consequently, the said report was never served upon the petitioner.

The petitioner claims that the T.E.T. certificates submitted by her to the employer is a genuine one. The certificate had been issued by the board and the petitioner presumed that the same was genuine. The petitioner got no opportunity to refute the said verification report sent by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education.

The distinction between the procedure to be followed while dismissing the services of an employee for departmental misconduct, and terminating an appointment obtained on the basis of false education certificates was examined by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024 (Distt. Basic Education Officer and Another v. Smt. Punita Singh and 3 Others).

This Court is noticing that in a number of cases proceedings for termination of appointment on the footing of false educational testimonials/certificates are initiated. In case a fraud in the educational certificates comes to light, the authorities are liable to follow the following procedure consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Punita Singh (supra):

A. In such cases there is no mandatory requirement to hold a departmental enquiry as held in Punita Singh (supra).

B. A report in regard to the authenticity of the marksheet/ educational certificates submitted by the candidate at the time of appointment shall be sought from the concerned Board/University/Educational Institution. All the latter institutions namely Board/University/Educational Institutions are bound by law to furnish such information in writing after due confirmation from the records.

C. The aforesaid reports which are proposed to be relied upon against the said candidates shall be served along with a show cause notice.

D. The concerned candidates will be given an opportunity to tender their defence before the disciplinary authority.

E. The disciplinary authority shall thereafter pass an order after due application of mind to the facts of the case.

Admittedly, this process was not followed in the instant case. The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024 (Distt. Basic Education Officer and Another v. Smt. Punita Singh and 3 Others). The impugned order is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj.

A regular departmental enquiry is not required to be conducted in the facts of this case in view of the judgement rendered in Punita Singh (supra).

The following directions are issued to the District Basic Education Officer:

I. The BSA shall take out proceedings in adherence to the law laid down by this Court in Punita Singh (supra).

II. BSA shall issue a show cause notice along with a copy of the report sent by the Board regarding the authenticity of the certificate of the petitioner.

III. The petitioner shall be given an adequate response to the show cause notice and tender his defence.

The controversy shall be decided by a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Before parting, the Court would like to observe that in a number of cases procedural irregularities are occurring in proceedings relating to forged degrees/ educational testimonials of Asst. Teachers. The concerned disciplinary authorities are neither well versed in law nor fully trained to pass these orders in consonance with law.

The aforesaid issues of deficient proceedings can be addressed only by ensuring constant supervision and regular training of the officers. The training programs have to be conducted for building the capacity of the disciplinary authorities to conduct departmental enquiries and other proceedings as per law. During the aforesaid training program a copy of this order along with the judgment of Division Bench judgement in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024 (Distt. Basic Education Officer and Another v. Smt. Punita Singh and 3 Others) shall be provided to the training officer."

5. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that since controversy involved in the present case is identical as in the case of Priyanka Agrawal (supra) hence petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

6. This fact is also admitted by the counsel for the respondents.

7. In this view of the matter, the following directions are issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj :-

I. The BSA shall take out proceedings in adherence to the law laid down by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 506 of 2024 (Distt. Basic Education Officer and Another v. Smt. Punita Singh and 3 Others).

II. BSA shall issue a show cause notice along with a copy of the report sent by the Board regarding the authenticity of the certificate of the petitioner.