Allahabad High Court
Radhakant Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 30 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:67979
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 1550 of 2022
Radhakant Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Prahlad Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Anam Som Ratna Maurya, Prahlad Maurya
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the records.
The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 4/Principal, Jetwan Inter College, Shrawasti(hereinafter, referred to as 'Institution') whereby, the observation is made that the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Committee of Management of the College has come into force, for the reasons, the petitioner is convicted. Further the orders dated 31.07.2015 and 25.02.2017 have also been challenged.
The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in institution and thereafter, his services were regularized and he was being given salary from the State Exchequer. He submitted that in year 2015, the first information report was lodged bearing Case Crime No. 937 of 2015 under section 354 of IPC, whereafter, chargesheet was filed under sections 354 and 296 of IPC and ultimately, the Committee of Management of the institution took decision to suspend the petitioner on the basis of the charges leveled in the first information report and one of the Assistant Teacher, Ram Narayan Srivastava was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and subsequently, on 31.07.2015 after completion of the departmental proceedings, the final order was passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Committee of Management as per the Rules. He also submitted that the matter was placed before the District Inspector of Schools, wherein, he has passed the order dated on 24.02.2016, whereby, the order passed by the Committee of Management was modified while giving adverse entry/warning and in-compliance thereof, the Committee of Management modified the dismissal order. He added that the final judgment and order in the Criminal Case, was passed on 14.11.2021 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby, a fine of Rs.200 was imposed and the petitioner was put under judicial custody for a day in the court room itself. He further submitted that subsequently, an appeal was preferred, but since the order was already complied with, therefore, the appeal was decided while given the benefit of provisions of first offender and as soon as the order was passed, the Principal of College, under the impression that the petitioner has been punished, passed the order on 16.11.2021, while observing that the order passed by the Committee of Management dated 31.07.2015 has come into force and the petitioner has been instructed that he is not entitled to render his services in the institution.
He argued that under the provision of law, it is the Committee of Management of the minority institution, who is authorized to pass any order of punishment against the Class-III Employee of the institution. He submitted that the punishment order was passed on 31.07.2015 which was already modified by the District Inspector of Schools and that was never assailed before any authority of law as the same was complied with by the Committee of Management vide order dated 25.07.2017 contrary the Principal of Institution, has passed the order impugned dated 16.11.2021, while giving the effect of the order dated 31.07.2015, which is not only without jurisdiction, but also against the provisions of law.
Concluding his arguments, he submits that since there is no adverse order except apart the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Principal of the College and therefore, the petitioner cannot be stopped to work in the institution, therefore, in that situation, he is also entitled for his salary, thus, submission is that the order impugned dated 16.11.2021 may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to work.
Mr. Prahlad Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that the service of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2015 as the petitioner has been punished and the order of conviction was passed, which has been affirmed in the appeal filed by the petitioner and since there is no Committee of Management in the institution up till date, therefore, once the facts came to the knowledge of the Principal regarding the order dated 15.11.2021, he passed the order on 16.11.2021 while stopping the petitioner to work in the institution and intimated it to the District Inspector of Schools and the other authorities. He submitted that the order was passed looking into the exigency, as the petitioner was not entitled to work in the institution and there was no existence of Committee of Management, which could pass the order, restraining the petitioner in the present scenario, therefore, submission is that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel appearing for the State, though, has opposed the contentions of counsel for the petitioner, but he has failed to substantiate his argument regarding the jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Principal of the College.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the controversy has arisen in the year 2015, when a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner under sections 354 and 296 of IPC, thereafter, the petitioner was convicted and the same was also affirmed by the appellate authority as the order of the trial court has been complied with, on the date of pronouncement of the judgment.
This Court has noticed that the learned court, while passing the conviction order, imposed the fine of Rs.200 upon the petitioner including, a day judicial custody in the court.
When this court examines the impugned order dated 16.11.2021, it emerges that the same has been passed by the Principal of the institution concerned, while the order of dismissal dated 31.07.2015 was passed by the Committee of Management. The order dated 31.07.2015 had already been modified by the then District Inspector of Schools and the compliance has been done thereof, by the then Committee of Management vide order dated 25.07.2017.
I have also considered that under the law, the Principal of the College has no power to stop the services in a situation rather the Committee of Management is empowered to take such recourse in the given institution. Further, the fact remains that the Committee of Management modified its order on 25.07.2017 in-compliance of the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by DIOS, therefore, the Principal of the College had no authority to modify the order of the Committee of Management by restraining the petitioner to work, in the institution. The exigency maybe of any kind, but the recourse of law provided in the Acts or the Rules cannot be violated or overlooked, therefore, the impugned order has jurisdictional error, thus, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 is hereby quashed.
Consequences shall be followed.
The instant petition is hereby allowed accordingly.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
October 30, 2025
Mayank
