Adit Dhar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 372 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Adit Dhar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69195
 
Court No. - 38
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59408 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- Adit Dhar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secry. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Lakhan Deobanshi,Shailendra Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Submission is that the petitioner was appointed as teacher temporarily in the 4th respondent - Institution on 24.07.1989 and his services were confirmed on 01.02.1992 by the Committee of Management. Since then he has been continuously working in the said Institution without any break. As one Radhey Shyam Tripathi who was Principal of the Institution died due to brain haemorrhage and the petitioner being senior most lecturer working in the said Institution has represented to the respondent to consider his case for Incharge Principal on 29.10.2013. He also made several requests to consider his case for the post of Principal. But without considering the same, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice on 26.08.2014 directing the petitioner to submit his reply and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 21.09.2014. Surprisingly, without considering the request made by the petitioner, the 4th respondent has passed the order on 30.09.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that the impugned order has been passed without conducting any inquiry and without following the procedure contemplated under the Rules and straightway termination order has been passed by the respondents. According to the Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001, Clause 9 (A) of the Rules provides that before terminating services of the Part Time Teacher, inquiry is mandatory but the impugned order has been passed without initiation of any disciplinary proceedings or without conducting inquiry. Therefore, the proceedings are contrary to the Clause 9 (A) of the Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001. Hence, the termination order is illegal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is specific averment made in paragraph no.19 of the writ petition with regard to violation of the principle of natural justice as well as non-conducting the inquiry.

5. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the 4th respondent by filing counter affidavit has mainly submitted that the action taken by the Committee of Management against the petitioner is purely independent. Considering lack of discipline and devotion towards job and the Institution, the respondents have issued show cause notice to the petitioner and considering his reply, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner. As per Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001 as against termination order, appeal provision lies to the District Inspector of Schools. Even according to the assertions made in the writ petition, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the District Inspector of Schools and the same is pending consideration. Hence the present writ petition may be dismissed remanding the matter to the District Inspector of Schools.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the 4th respondent has laid emphasis on the impugned order which is reproduced herein under:

"????????/????????

?? ???? ??????????? ?????,

???????, ???????

???? ???,

????- ???? ??

????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????

???????-80 2014-15 ??????- 30.09.14

????- ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 26.08.2014 ??? ????????? ?????? 30.09.2014 ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ???-

?????,

?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???-???? ?? ????? ? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ?????, ???? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? 09.08.2014 ??? ???????? ?????? 04 ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???-???? ?? ????? ? ???? ????

??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ? ????

???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???????-

1.???? ???????? ???????? ???????

?????

????????

?? ???? ?? ?????

???????, ???????"

7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the above impugned order, it clearly discloses that the respondents have not even considered the reply submitted by the petitioner in its correct perspective. It further discloses that the respondents are not bothered to conduct any inquiry before terminating services of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001, more particularly Clause 9 (A) of the Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001.

8. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of C/M Pratibha Inter College, Barabanki through Manager Indra Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Secondary Education U.P. Government Lucknow and others, 2024 LawSuit (All) 1107 as identical issue came up before this Court and the division Bench of this Court has set aside the orders directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service.

9. In view of the above, as the issue has already been decided and covered by the said judgment, the impugned order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside for non-following the procedure contemplated in Clause 9 (A) of the Part Time Teachers Service Rules, 2001 and also for not conducting any appropriate inquiry before terminating the services of the petitioner, with direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

rkg

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)