Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Bilhaur Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 10 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34379 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3028 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Bilhaur Inter College Bilhaur District Kanpur Nagar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Dwivedi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Jain, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. The counsels for both the parties are in agreement that this writ petition may be decided finally, on basis of documents available on the records, and that exchange of pleadings is not required.
3. This is second round of litigation. The petitioners have earlier approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 13725 of 2024 which stood partly allowed vide order, dated 20.09.2024, being Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:153466, and relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinafter:-
"12. Considering the fact that as there is a direction of Division Bench in Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 and the writ Court in Writ-A No.4264 of 2024, the District Inspector of Schools should have dealt with the matter regarding termination of services pursuant to suspension order dated 30.06.2021 before disposing of the recall application.
13. In the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.605 of 2022 had passed the interim order. The inquiry was going on pursuant to the suspension order dated 30.06.2021 and charge-sheet having been issued, the termination took place on 22.10.2023 subsequent to passing of interim order by the Division Bench.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the order passed on recall application on 18.07.2024 lacks due consideration as to the termination of services of respondent No.3 and the direction of Division Bench in Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 and the order of writ Court in Writ A No.4264 of 2024.
15. In view of the said fact, the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar directing him to decide the matter afresh considering the aforesaid facts after hearing both the affected parties, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
16. Till the decision is taken by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, with regard to disciplinary proceedings, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.
17. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed."
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the DIOS Kanpur Nagar passed a fresh order, dated 17.01.2025 whereby the proposal to dismiss respondent no. 3 was dis-approved and consequently his suspension order was also disapproved. The relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinafter:-
"???? 2014 ?? ???? 2021 ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ????????, ????? ????????????, ??????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? (05) ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ??, ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??????? 1921 ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? 3 ??? 36 ??? 37 ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ????"
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the impugned order has assigned reasons contrary to records and by referring the inquiry report, annexed along with this writ petition, he submitted that the reply of respondent no. 3 considered and only thereafter, conclusions were arrived. He further submitted that copy of the said inquiry report along with the show-cause notice was submitted to the respondent no. 3, however, despite an opportunity, no reply was submitted to the same. Therefore, on basis of report and seriousness of the charges, a penalty of termination was justified.
6. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in case procedure was found to be defective, the DIOS, Kanpur Nagar, ought to have permitted the petitioners to continue inquiry from that stage, however, without considering nature of allegations and without any proper explanation, as to how the termination order of the respondent no. 3 was not legally justified, the impugned order was passed. A further opportunity, for filing reply, to petitioners was denied.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 submitted that respondent no. 3 has already suffered with repeated suspension orders and repeated charge-sheets on same set of allegations. The said respondent has sought time to submit reply to the inquiry report and show-cause notice, but without granting time, the petitioners have rushed to conclude the inquiry and passed an order of termination of respondent no. 3 from his service.
8. Further, by referring the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel submitted that principles of natural justice were violated. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that an FIR was also lodged against respondent no. 3, however thrice, final report was submitted and presently a protest petition, filed by the complainant therein, is still under consideration.
9. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. In the impugned order the finding returned that a inquiry report was submitted ex-parte does not appear to be a correct fact. On basis of records, since not only the respondent no. 3 has submitted his reply but it was considered also. However, a fact still remains that when a show-cause notice was issued to respondent no. 3, along with the copy of the inquiry report, the said respondent had sought time to file reply, however, no further time was granted and a termination order was passed.
11. In the impugned order, nature of the allegation were ignored as well as the Court is of the opinion that in the inquiry if there was a procedural defect that is without granting a proper opportunity to respondent no. 3, to submit a reply to the show-cause notice, if a final order was passed ex-parte, therefore, instead of disapproving the order of termination, the State respondent ought to have directed the Committee of Management to proceed from the stage, where a procedural defect was occurred.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent no. 3 is directed to submit his reply, to the show-cause notice already submitted before the appointing authority along with the inquiry report, within four weeks and thereafter, within four weeks the appointing authority will pass a fresh order and consequently matter will be referred to the DIOS.
13. Now so far as question of suspension is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that since an inquiry report has already been submitted and a new liberty is granted to petitioners to commence inquiry from the stage of show cause notice, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that respondent no. 3 will be allowed to work subject to the subsequent outcome of the final order, to be passed in the departmental inquiry and subsequently by the DIOS concerned.
14. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Saurabh