Sweta @ Shweta Mishra vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 897 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sweta @ Shweta Mishra vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 13 May, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78339-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 542 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- Sweta @ Shweta Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7.5.2024 in Writ-A No.4802 of 2022, whereby the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge has observed in para 6 that there were nine charges levelled against the petitioner none of which are disputed nor the same has been assailed in the writ petition. With these findings the writ has been dismissed.

2. Before adverting to the findings of the learned Single Judge it would be appropriate to refer to the background facts which have led to the controversy raised in the present matter. The appellant was engaged in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Rajepur, Farrukhabad as a full time teacher in science on 8.1.2016. The initial appointment of the appellant was for one year which was extended from time to time. The appellant-petitioner was receiving fixed honorarium initially of Rs.20,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.22,000/-. It transpires that the attendance of teachers in the institution was desired by the District Basic Education Officer on 7.8.2020 and it was found that in the attendance register appellant was shown absent for two days i.e. 5.8.2020 and 6.8.2020. A notice was issued to the appellant on 7.8.2020 by the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad stating that her unauthorized absence for two days was not explained nor any information was received from her. Opportunity was given to the appellant to explain her absence of two days within 48 hours. This show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 10.8.2020 stating that appellant had already informed the warden about her absence due to ill-health of her father and had also sought leave for two days. An application was also sent on the whatsapp number of the warden. In her reply dated 10.8.2020, the appellant also expressed apology if there was any inadvertent error on her part and claimed sympathetic consideration. On the reply submitted by the appellant no orders apparently were passed and ultimately her engagement came to be discontinued on 27.11.2020. This order of discontinuance of engagement of appellant was passed at the time when her claim for renewal of contract was examined. This order dated 27.11.2020 came to be challenged by the appellant in Writ-A No.915 of 2021. On 27.7.2021, her writ petition was disposed of vide following orders:-

"Although a regular disciplinary inquiry may not be necessary in case of contractual employee, yet where the disengagement or denial of extension is on the basis of certain complaints or misconduct attributed to the teacher concerned, atleast a minimum opportunity of hearing would be required so that the teacher could respond to the allegations made against her. This procedure admittedly has not been followed in the matter. Neither the petitioner has been made aware of the charges nor she has been given any opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, order passed by the authority concerned dated 27.11.2020 cannot be sustained.

Considering the nature of petitioner's engagement, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad to furnish all materials that have been relied upon against her for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner's conduct is not proper to the petitioner. Such materials will be furnished to petitioner within a period of two weeks from from the date of service of the order. Petitioner would be at liberty to submit her reply in that regard within two weeks, thereafter. The District Level Committee which is entrusted with the task of engagement would consider petitioner's reply and would take a fresh decision in the matter relating to extension of petitioner's engagement in the next academic sessions. The order impugned dated 27.11.2020 shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the authority concerned.

Writ petition accordingly stands disposed off."

3. It is thereafter that notices were issued to the appellant to appear for hearing on 27.9.2021. Again a notice was issued to the appellant on 24.11.2021 requiring her to remain present before the Committee on 26.11.2021. The appellant sent repeated letters stating that there was no fault on her part and her absence from duty for two days was due to unavoidable circumstances of which intimation was already given to the warden and, therefore, the authorities may not take any punitive measure against her. Ultimately, the District Basic Education Officer has rejected the appellant's claim vide order dated 31.12.2021 against which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by learned Single Judge.

4. Although learned Single Judge has noticed that there were nine charges on which the appellant has been non-suited and that those charges are neither denied nor shown to be incorrect but we find that this observation of learned Single Judge is clearly not borne out from the materials on record. Clause 1 to 9, which allegedly contains the charges against the appellant are reproduced hereinafter:-

"?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????????? ? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? 03 ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? 30.11.2021 ?? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????

2- ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????

3- ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ????

4-?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???

5-????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? / ?????????????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ????

6-????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? 05:00 ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??-?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???

7- ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ????

8-?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? / ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????

9-?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?????? 29.11.2021 ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 27.07.2021 ?? ????? ???? ???? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ?????"

4. So far as the first issue is concerned, it only records that the appellant was given three days time to make a written representation and furnish evidence on her behalf which has not been submitted. This cannot be treated to be a charge nor can it be relied upon as a material to reject the appellant's claim. In fact, under previous order of this Court in Writ-A No.915 of 2021 the District Basic Education Officer was directed to provide material to the appellant on the basis of which she was denied extension of contractual engagement. No such material was however furnished to the appellant. In its absence no evidence could be furnished by her. The second observation is that the appellant had confessed her mistake and requested that she be re-employed on the condition that she will not commit any error again. This cannot be treated to be a charge, either. The third issue is that she was given warning and that she had already informed about her leave but she was wrongly shown absent. This in fact is the explanation of the appellant and cannot be treated to be a charge or a material against her. On the fourth issue the appellant only stated that she had no knowledge about causes which led to her termination. We fail to understand as to how this could be a charge. Clause 5, 6 and 7 refers to various representations made by the appellant which also included allegation that bribe was demanded from her and that she was called after 5.00 PM by the then Chief Development Officer of the district at his residence. Unfortunately these serious charges have not been adverted to by the authorities at all and is taken as a charge against the appellant. So far as clause 8 is concerned, the appellant has clearly denied cutting or overwriting by her. Clause 9 refers to her prayer to be reinstated in service.

5. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that the only material against the appellant was that she was found absent from the school for two days i.e. 5.8.2020 and 6.8.2020. Apart from it, there is neither any allegation of her unauthorized absence nor any complaint is ever made with regard to her working. It is most unfortunate that such absence for two days although was attempted to be explained but the authorities instead of considering her explanation proceeded to deny her the benefit of extension of contractual employment. We have also noticed the fact that the appellant allegedly had informed the warden about her absence and requested her to lodge her application, for casual leave, and that she was wrongly shown absent in the school. The contractual employees are otherwise entitled to 14 days casual leave in a year and the appellant had only availed two days leave . It is most disheartening that for such absence of two days the authorities not only victimized the appellant but also denied her the benefit of extension of contractual employment.

6. The appellant had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition, wherein a direction was issued for her to be furnished material on the basis of which she was denied engagement. No material has been given for such purposes. Except for the plea of absence from school for two days there is absolutely nothing against her on record. Her desperate attempt to run after the authorities and seek renewal of extension has rather been met with utmost callousness by the State authorities. The making of allegation by the appellant, who is a lady, was otherwise a serious charge against the officials and could not have been treated as a material against the appellant to deny her consideration. The fact that appellant was denied extension from engagement only due to her absence of two days does not rule out the possibility of truth in the allegations made by her. However, her complaint has neither been examined nor probed and is relied upon by the department to punish her. Even otherwise, the appellant had sought forgiveness for having raised her grievance before the authorities. We fail to understand as to how on these facts a contractual teacher could be denied extension. We also cannot fathom as to how the above material can be treated as material adverse against the appellant so as to dis-entitle her to the benefit of extension of contractual employment.

7. Learned Single Judge apparently has been misled into treating the nine points to be nine charges which is not the fact here. Though ordinarily this Court may not like to interfere in matters of contractual engagement but when such denial is based on a charge and the charge itself is found baseless it would not be appropriate to allow the State to victimize the teacher concerned.

8. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellant is entitle to the relief prayed in the writ. For the reasons and discussions held above, judgment of learned Single Judge dated 7.5.2024 passed in Writ-A No.4802 of 2022 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to extend contractual employment to the appellant, forthwith.

9. We are informed that a fresh advertisement has been issued for engagement against which none has been appointed. If that be the case, the appellant will be engaged by the respondents on contractual basis, forthwith. If the post is already filled the District Basic Education Officer shall adjust the appellant in any nearby institution.

10. The manner in which the appellant has been treated by the authorities, we impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the then District Basic Education Officer which would open to be recovered from the salary of the officer concerned.

11. With the above direction/observation, this special appeal is, consequently, allowed.

Order Date :- 13.5.2025

RA