Allahabad High Court
Devendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 28 May, 2025
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91733
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6100 of 2025
Petitioner :- Devendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. The instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the said charge sheet dated 18.3.2025 approved by Upper Shiksha Nideshak (Additional Director) U.P. Prayagraj and Joint Director of Education Region Meerut-I. Again new inquiry officer has been appointed i.e. Joint Director of Education Region Meerut-I.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 3 to stay this casual departmental proceeding i.e on the basis of the false, fabricated, forged and fake charges.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directed to the respondents shall permit to the petitioner to join in Government Inter College, Ashok Nagar, Rampur and pay salary to him regularly."
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order of punishment was passed by the respondent no.3-Additional Director of Education (Government), Prayagraj, U.P.. The procedure for enquiry for purpose of imposing major penalty was not substantially followed.
3. It is stated that the petitioner has approached this Court by means of Writ-A No. 10481 of 2024 (Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), which petition came to be disposed of by means of judgment dated 10.2.2025 which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Devendra Singh, petitioner-in-person and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned punishment order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent-3 mainly on a ground that due process of inquiry as contemplated in Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short "Rules, 1999") so far as inquiry for purpose of imposing a major penalty was not substantially followed.
3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against petitioner and after proceeding to some extent i.e. after issuing charge sheet, the inquiry officer was changed probably on the request of petitioner. Subsequently, a charge sheet was again served upon petitioner vide letter dated 01.05.2024 and a date was fixed for personal hearing on 15.05.2024. The charge sheet was challenged before this Court at behest of petitioner and during proceedings, respondents have served a copy of order dated 28.06.2024 i.e. an order of punishment, therefore, said writ petition was disposed of with an opportunity to petitioner to challenge the same. Accordingly, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. From records, it appears that charge sheet was served subsequently vide letter dated 01.05.2024 on 8 charges of serious nature, however, there is nothing on record whether petitioner has replied the same or appeared before inquiry officer or not. Record further shows that an inquiry report dated 27.05.2024 was submitted before Appointing Authority, however, it is not on record whether inquiry report was served upon petitioner or not.
5. Record further shows that a fact that whether an inquiry report was submitted to petitioner along with a show cause notice was also not referred in impugned order dated 28.06.2024 whereby a major punishment was imposed upon the petitioner.
6. In this regard, petitioner in person has referred relevant provisions of Rules, 1999 as well as contents of paragraph 33 of writ petition which is quoted below :-
"33. That the new inquiry officer not given full opportunity and rebut of the inquiry report."
7. Learned Standing Counsel for State has referred paragraph 23 of counter affidavit which is quoted below:-
"23. That in reply to contents of paragraph 29 and 30 of writ petition, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of inquiry report and after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner therefore impugned order is liable to be affirmed by this Hon'ble Court."
8. In rebuttal, petitioner in person has referred paragraph 26 of rejoinder affidavit which is quoted below :-
"26. That contents of paragraph nos. 23 and 24 of the counter affidavit are not correct as stated hence denied. The order impugned is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in the case of Vijay Singh case the Hon'ble Apex Court held about no any other can be passed without given as per Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999."
9. I have considered above submissions and it appears that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner was not conducted in terms of provisions of Rules, 1999 and process was not followed after inquiry report was prepared i.e. neither it was served upon petitioner nor any averment is made so far as service of inquiry report and reply, if any, in the punishment order is concerned, therefore, punishment order dated 28.06.2024 passed by respondent-3 is set aside and it is directed that inquiry report be submitted to petitioner and process be carry forward from that stage.
10. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that petitioner was transferred also by impugned punishment order but admittedly, he has not joined. There were earlier occasions also when he has not followed order of attachment, therefore, in view of principles of 'no work no pay', petitioner is not entitled for said period as well as Court is of considered opinion that in view of nature of allegations and for fair conclusion of inquiry, petitioner shall be attached with office of D.I.O.S., Moradabad and for a period of 3 months and meanwhile, inquiry be concluded.
11. Court also takes note that some allegations are made against respondent officers by name on vague averments, therefore, such averments are rejected and petitioner is put on caution that he should remain careful in future as well as being a teacher, he should concentrate on his duties and he should not indulge in any other activity.
12. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.
13. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps."
4. It is stated that initially a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Subsequently, another charge sheet was served on the petitioner by means of a letter dated 1.5.2024 and date was fixed for personal hearing on 15.5.2024. The charge sheet was challenged before this Court, but the respondents served a copy of an order dated 28.6.2024 which is an order imposing penalty and, therefore, the petition was disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to challenge the same.
5. By means of the aforesaid order dated 28.6.2024, a major penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. It is stated that the aforesaid writ petition of 2024 was disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid order of penalty dated 28.6.2024, passed by respondent no. 3 with a direction that a copy of the enquiry report be given to the petitioner and process of enquiry be carried forward from that stage.
6. The contention is that in the teeth of the aforesaid judgment dated 10.2.2025, the respondents have issued a fresh charge sheet dated 18.3.2025 to the petitioner which has been approved by the respondent no.3 .
7. Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 26.5.2025, the respondent no.3 was directed to appear in person. The respondent no.3, namely, Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi is personally present in Court and he has been identified by the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Advocate.
8. A personal affidavit of Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record. The affidavit is accompanied by an exemption application. Paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit reads as follows:-
"8. That the deponent most respectfully submit that in compliance of order dated 26.5.2025 passed by this Hon'ble court, the deponent/respondent no.3- Additional Director of Education (Government), directorate of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj vide order dated 27.5.2025 cancelled/withdrawn the charge sheet dated 18.3.2025 and further the inquiry report dated 27.5.2024 submitted by the Inquiry Officer was sent to the petitioner by letter dated 27.5.2025 sent through registered post on 27.5.2025. Copy of order dated 27.5.2025 passed by the deponent/respondent no.3-Additional Director of Education (Government), directorate of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj as well as copy of letter dated 27.5.2025 of respondent no.3 whereby inquiry report was sent to the petitioner alongwith receipt of registry are being annexed herewith and are marked as Annexure Nos 1 and 2 respectively to this Hon'ble Court."
9. A perusal of the affidavit reflects that though unconditional apology has been tendered, the explanation for non-compliance of the previous judgment of 10.2.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 10481 of 2024 is not forthcoming.
10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner says that a copy of the order dated 27.5.2025 withdrawing the charge sheet sent by means of letter dated 18.3.2025 has been filed as Annexure-A-1 to the personal affidavit filed today and a copy of the enquiry report dated 27.5.2024 is also on record of the aforesaid personal affidavit which has also been dispatched to the petitioner by registered post on 27.5.2025.
11. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief sought at prayer no.1 has been satisfied in view of the withdrawal of the charge sheet, and the relief sought for at prayer nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition cannot be sought at this stage.
12. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further is required to be done in the instant petition. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. It, however, goes without saying that due procedure for conducting the enquiry shall be meticulously followed by the respondents authorities. The reliefs sought at prayer nos. 2 and 3 would be available to the petitioner to be raised by a fresh petition in case the circumstance so warrants.
13. The appearance of respondent no. 3 is exempted and the exemption application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2025
sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J)
