Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Irshad And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154519
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6041 of 2019
Mohd. Irshad And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Adarsh Bhushan, Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate), Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Mohammad Ali Ausaf, Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.)
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.15 of 2025
1. Heard Shri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the proposed impleading-respondent.
2. As this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, the impleadment application is rejected.
Order on Writ Petition
3. Heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6.
4. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 01.03.2014 passed by respondent nos.4 and 5 terminating the services of the petitioners. The basic contention raised in the writ petition is that, though the charges were framed and charge-sheet dated 13.01.2014 was issued by respondent nos.4 and 5 which was never served upon the petitioners. Further, the alleged inquiry proceedings have taken behind the back of petitioners and against the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Ashaskeeya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madrason Ki Manyata Niyamawali of 1987, more particularly Rules 33 and 34. It is further averred that though the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted but the fact remains that the employees does not participated in the inquiry and it is also stated that the notice and termination order dated 01.03.2014 was the same and there is no show cause notice issued by respondent nos.4 and 5 to the petitioners before issuing the order of termination on 01.03.2014. The termination order also does not mention the date of inquiry report, which clearly reflects the disciplinary proceedings have not conduced in fair manner. Hence, the entire disciplinary proceedings are not in accordance with the Rule 34.
5. Based on the above averments, learned counsel for the petitioner has presses argument that disciplinary proceedings are behind the back of the petitioner and any stretch of imagination the respondents have not conducted the inquiry as per the Rules, 1987. According to Rule 34 of the said Rules, if the Management decides to remove any teaching staff from service the legal proceedings must have been conducted before such removal, but in the instant case, till impugned order i.e. on 01.03.2014 the petitioners were never put on notice. Hence, the entire termination order is based on the alleged inquiry conducted based on the charge-sheet dated 13.01.2014. In fact the issue was placed before the second-respondent i.e. Inspector/ Registrar, Arabic & Persian Madarsas, and the said officer has interdicted the said orders and directed the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to continue the petitioners on the same posts. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent nos.5 and 6 have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.14865 of 2015 and initially this Court has granted interim directions on 06.05.2015 and finally the said writ petition was allowed on 12.04.2018. In view of the pendency of the said writ petition the petitioners have not assailed the termination order and only after allowing the writ petition filed by respondent nos.5 and 6, the petitioners have chosen to file the present writ petition.
6. In reply to the said contentions, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 has submitted that in fact the respondents after issuing charge-sheet, the petitioners were placed under suspension when the petitioners have not responded to the same, left with no option the respondents have issued vide publicity calling their replies and accordingly, they have conducted inquiry and based on the records the Committee has came to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained appointment based on the forged certificates. And with regard to reply to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly conceded that when the petitioners have not chosen to respond to the charge-sheet and to the suspension order, respondents left with no option except to proceed and conclude the inquiry based on the records.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ A No.8504 of 2014 where the identical issue has fell for consideration and more specifically placed reliance on paragraph nos.3, 7 and 9 of the said order, which reads as follows:-
"3. The basic issue that requires adjudication, in the facts of the present case, would be the legality of the decision taken by the Committee of Management to dismiss the employee concerned i.e. Mahe Alam. This has been done by way of an order dated 31st December, 2013 passed by the Manager of the Madarsa. This decision is based upon a resolution of the Committee of the Management dated 28th December, 2013. A perusal of the order dated 31st December, 2013 would go to show that a disciplinary enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 9th December, 2013, holding the employee to be guilty of the charges levelled. The Committee of Management agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and acting upon it a decision was taken to dismiss the employee concerned. This decision is challenged, primarily, on the ground that neither the copy of the enquiry report was served upon the employee concerned nor he was heard in the matter. It is also contended that the disciplinary enquiry itself was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727.
7. In case the Management intended to rely upon the letter dated 17th December, 2012, the least that was expected was that its copy ought to have been furnished to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, particularly as the charges were specifically denied by the employee in reply to the charge levelled in that regard. The enquiry report also ought to have been furnished to the dismissed employee, so that he may submit his response to it. Since this has not been done, this Court finds that principles of natural justice have been violated.
9. The disciplinary proceedings stand restored to the stage at which the defect itself has occurred. For the purposes of holding of enquiry, the employee concerned would be reinstated, but liberty stands reserved to the Committee of Management to place him under suspension. The disciplinary proceedings would be concluded within a period of four months, thereafter. The question of grant of back wages or other reliefs would abide by the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings."
8. Further, he has brought to the notice of the Court that the termination order passed by the very same Institution are interdicted by this Court. But the same was denied by the learned Senior counsel saying that those terminations are on some other grounds.
9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel, as this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, only on the ground of procedural aspect which already considered by this Court in Writ A No.8504 of 2014 and this writ petition is also disposed of by setting aside the termination order dated 01.03.2014, remanding the matter to the respondents to consider afresh from the stage of inquiry and after providing full opportunity to the petitioner and take appropriate action and its is needless to mention that the petitioner should co-operate in the inquiry proceedings.
(Donadi Ramesh,J.)
September 2, 2025
AdityaG
