Allahabad High Court
Maya Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13739
Court No. - 19
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 13 of 2025
Applicant :- Maya Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Verma,Vinay Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rishabh Tripathi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Application has been filed seeking review of judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 3924 of 2022.
2. Learned counsel for review petitioner submits that while transcribing the judgment and order dated 09.08.2024, details and facts of some other petition appear to have been incorporated. It is submitted that certain other relevant facts pertaining to present petition have inadvertently been omitted during transcribing of judgment. It is, therefore, submitted that instead of treating the present application as a review, the same may be treated as an application for correction/modification. Therefore, the application is being treated as one for correction/modification and not review.
3. Learned counsel for opposite parties submit that present review may be treated as an application for correction/modification.
4. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is evident from a perusal of judgment and order dated 09.08.2024 that details and facts of some other petition appear to have been incorporated inadvertently while certain other relevant facts required to be indicated however have been omitted while transcribing the said judgment and order.
5. In view thereof, the paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are required to be corrected and are corrected in the following manner:-
6. In paragraph 1 of the aforesaid judgment and order, the following shall be substituted.
'Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4.'
7. Paragraph 4 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'It is also submitted that impugned order is based only on report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Nawabganj, Barabanki dated 19.05.2023 and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahmoodabad District Sitapur dated 05.10.2021.
8. Paragraph 5 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'It is submitted that the entire impugned order is based only on the report dated 19.05.2022 and 05.10.2021 issued by the aforesaid Authority but neither a copy of the same was provided to petitioner nor was she permitted to file any reply there against. It is therefore submitted that since impugned order has been passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, the same required to be interfered with'
9. Paragraph 6 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that impugned order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and since the matter pertains to cancellation of appointment on the ground of impersonation at the time of appointment, procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 are not required to be followed.'
10. Paragraph 8 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 17.06.2022, it transpires that initially on the allegation of petitioner having obtained appointment through impersonation, an opportunity to give reply to the said allegation was provided to petitioner which was also replied to by her in which she has clearly stated that petitioner has valid documents and false ex parte reports were submitted behind back of petitioner and reports dated 05.10.2021 and 19.05.2022 were not supplied to petitioner to rebut the same which had been submitted by petitioner at the time of her appointment. It is in pursuance of such a request that reports were to be supplied but same was not done.'
11. Paragraph 9 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'However a reading of impugned order does not indicate that a copy of report dated 05.10.2021 & 19.05.2022 was ever provided to petitioner or that she was at any time granted any opportunity to rebut the aforesaid report which is the basis of the impugned order. It is therefore evident that principles of natural justice have not been adhered to while passing the impugned order.'
12. Paragraph 15 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'It is, therefore, quite evident that once allegations have been levelled upon an employee to have put forth a false claim on the strength of impersonation and has obtained appointment in terms thereof, such a person would necessarily be required to be removed from service. However, the important aspect in all such proceedings is to verify the allegations which have been levelled and to follow principles of natural justice pertaining to examining the veracity of such allegations.'
13. Paragraph 17 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'In the present case, such a course of action has not been followed by the opposite parties inasmuch as the reports dated 05.10.2021 & 19.05.2022 which form the basis of impugned order were never provided to the petitioner nor was any rebuttal or reply sought from her in that regard.'
14. Paragraph 18 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'It is also evident from a perusal of material on record that in her reply to the show cause notice, petitioner had annexed various documents to prove her anscestry. Such documents are indicated in the reply but no cognizance thereof has been indicated in the impugned order. The order dated 17.06.2022 also appears to be based on report of Tehsildar, Nawabgang dated 10.05.2022 but pertains only to demise of one Ram Gopal Verma and not with regard to Maya Devi. There also does not appear to be any evidence on the basis of which the report indicates Maya Devi having passed away.'
15. Paragraph 19 of the judgment and order shall read as follows:-
'In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 17.06.2022 being against principles of natural justice is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioner from the stage of filing of reply to the notice. The report dated 05.10.2021 & 19.05.2022 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahmoodabad & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barabanki shall also be provided to petitioner in order to enable her to rebut the findings recorded therein. Opposite parties shall take a final decision with regard to petitioner's continuance or otherwise within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before concerned authority with documentary evidence produced by petitioner with regard to her ancestry being specifically considered. For purposes of such an inquiry, petitioner shall be reinstated in service.'
16. The application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025
Satish
