Allahabad High Court
Sarita Singh vs District Basic Education Officer ... on 23 August, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11407 of 2025
Sarita Singh
.....Petitioners(s)
Versus
District Basic Education Officer Mirzapur And 10 Others
.....Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Manvendra Nath Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Grijesh Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Dubey
Court No.52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aman Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Rastogi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and Sri Girijesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 9.
2. Written submissions given by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, in Court today, are taken on record.
3. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 29.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 passed by respondent no.1/ District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1/ District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as Headmaster Incharge at Composite School, Bangla Deoria, Block Narayanpur, District Mirzapur, forthwith."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has passed B.T.C. examination in the year 1992 and was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 09.04.1997. She joined in Primary School, Nagpur, Block-Magi, District Sonbhadra, from where she was transferred to Primary School, Pauni, where she joined on 10.08.1997 and, thereafter, she joined as Head Master on 23.12.2011 in Primary School, Bangla Deoria, Block- Narayanpur, District- Mirzapur. The petitioner being senior most in Primary and Middle both sections was given the post of In-charge Head Master after merger of Primary and Middle Schools on 10.03.2021.
5. On account of village politics, the respondent no.9, namely, Mainuddin, who happens to be the president of Committee of Management of the School, moved a complaint against the petitioner with the several allegations one being that the mid-day-meal funds have been transferred by the petitioner into the accounts of her husband and son.
6. On the aforesaid complaint, respondent no.1/BSA constituted an inquiry committee on 27.03.2024 and directed the respondent no.2/Block Education Officer, Rajgarh & Pahari, Mirzapur to conduct an inquiry and submit a report within a period of three days. The respondent no.2 conducted an inquiry, to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 18.05.2024. The petitioner received a letter dated 30.12.2024 issued from the office of respondent no.1 whereby the annual increment of the petitioner has been withheld by order dated 10.06.2024 and she was also asked to produce relevant records which she had not earlier produced before the inquiry committee as directed.
7. On the aforesaid, reply was submitted on 04.01.2025, received in the office of respondent no.1 on 09.01.2025, informing that the petitioner had already submitted the relevant records long back on 05.06.2024. Despite objections raised in the reply, stating that the petitioner was not aware about the alleged inquiry report dated 02.03.2024 submitted by respondent no.2 and the fact that the alleged inquiry report has not been provided to the petitioner, the respondent no.4/Block Education Officer, Narayanpur, Mirzapur directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of Head Master to the next senior most Assistant Teacher by order dated 15.01.2025. The charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 22.01.2025, which has been received by the petitioner on her Whatsapp on 03.02.2025, to which she submitted a reply on 14.02.2025 annexing all the documentary evidence with respect to the allegations in the charge sheet. Relying upon some inquiry report dated 16.04.2025, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 29.04.2025 in contemplation of inquiry. A show cause notice dated 09.06.2025 has been issued to the petitioner, calling for objections, if any, against the punishment and the report submitted by respondent no.3 (Inquiry Officer) on 16.04.2025. She filed a reply on 23.06.2025, without considering the objection of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26.07.2025 has been passed imposing a minor punishment withholding one increment for one year along with another punishment of transferring the petitioner to Composite School, Samadpur, Block-Narayanpur, District- Mirzapur.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders clearly goes to show that the same are wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, as such cannot be legally sustained.
9. After punishing the petitioner by order dated 26.07.2025, there was no occasion to pass the transfer order dated 29.07.2025, which clearly reflects mala fide on the part of respondent no.1. The petitioner has been discharging her duties as In-charge Headmaster since 2011 in Primary School and since 2021 in Composite School, but till date, on account of some reasons, she has been divested from the charge to provide benefit to the next senior most teacher i.e. respondent no.10. As such the entire proceedings or inquiry has been initiated on account of vested interest. The objection/reply given by the petitioner has not been considered and the order impugned has been passed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the inquiry has been conducted behind the back of petitioner and inquiry report dated 16.04.2025 has not been handed over to the petitioner. Relying upon the inquiry report dated 16.04.2025 conducted behind the back of petitioner, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing and without following the proper procedure as required under law, the order impugned has been passed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken following grounds in the written submissions placed before the Court:-
(i). The Charge-sheet given to the petitioner did not contain any allegation with regard to the alleged irregularity in stock of Food Grain, however, in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has proved the allegations of irregularities in stock of Food Grain without giving any opportunity to rebut the said allegation. Accordingly, the enquiry report is illegal and the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction.
(ii). After submission of charge-sheet and reply given by the petitioner, no further opportunity has been given to the petitioner as provided under Rule 7 to 9 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999.
(iii). As per rules 7 to 9 of the aforesaid Rules 1999, neither the oral evidence has been led nor any witness has been examined and no date or time has been fixed and opportunity has not been given to the petitioner as per the said Rules. Hence, the entire enquiry proceedings are against the provisions as provided under Rule 7 to 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 1999, therefore, the enquiry report is illegal and cannot be legally sustained.
(iv). Furthermore, under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules of 1999, explanation submitted by the petitioner against show-cause notice has also not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent no.1. Consequently, the impugned order of punishment is illegal and cannot be legally sustained.
(v). Even otherwise, only two and a half charges said to be proved in the enquiry out of 7 charges, which does not even called upon for minor punishment. In fact, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the punishment order has been passed, which is illegal and cannot be sustained.
(vi). The entire proceedings as proceeded against the petitioner, clearly prove the mala fide of the Respondent no.1 against petitioner and favouritism towards Respondent no.10 and that's why, even after submission of the enquiry report, in place of giving show cause notice to the petitioner, she was suspended and the respondent no.10 was given charge as In-charge Head Master, in place of the petitioner, therefore, the entire enquiry proceeding is result of unfairness and undue favour to Respondent No.10, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
(vii). That, even, the biased action of the Respondent no.1 proves from this fact that during the course of fact-finding enquiry, the order of punishment withholding yearly increment has been passed on 10.06.2024 without even concluding the fact-finding enquiry. As such, the impugned orders are wholly illegal and result of mala fide.
(viii). In view of the aforesaid illegal inquiry and its report, the punishment order is illegal and the consequential order of transfer is also illegal. No vacancy exists at the transferred school.
(ix). In the show cause notice dated 09.6.2025 along with enquiry report the the Respondent No.1/ disciplinary authority has directed the petitioner to produce the evidence if any, by her and to produce witnesses whereas, this observation in the letter dated 09.06.2025 is against the provisions of law as after concluding the enquiry, this observation of the respondent no.1 is without jurisdiction and against the Rules of 1999 and as such the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above submissions, has relied upon the following cases rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble Court:-
"(i) State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2), SCC, 722.
(ii) Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs. Managing Director and others, 2000 (1) UPLBEC, 541.
(iii) Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (1) AWC, 704.
(iv) Sanoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 (2) UPLBEC, 978."
13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issues as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner have already been examined by this Court in Writ A No.9632 of 2025 (Dharvendra Pal Singh vs. State of UP and 3 Others).
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
15. Brief facts as noticed by this Court is that on some complaint a letter dated 22.01.2025 was sent to the petitioner requiring a reply within 15 days, also mentioning the charges levelled against her. The petitioner submitted her reply to the aforesaid on 14.02.2025, after looking into which a preliminary inquiry was then conducted and on the basis of the preliminary inquiry report dated 16.04.2025, placing the petitioner under suspension by order dated 29.04.2025, subsequently, a notice dated 09.06.2025 along with the preliminary inquiry report dated 16.04.2025 was given to the petitioner, to which she submitted a reply on 23.06.2025, after considering which the order impugned has been passed. The suspension order has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time.
16. Perusal of the record goes to show that seven charges/allegations were framed. After considering the reply, a notice dated 09.06.2025 was issued granting her opportunity to give her explanation on the same. The explanation has been given by the petitioner on 23.06.2025, which have been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned. Thus, the argument as made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity has been provided has no legs to stand. The preliminary inquiry report dated 16.04.2025 was also prepared after giving notice and considering the reply of the petitioner, which is evident from perusal of the report dated 16.04.2025 handed over to the petitioner on 09.06.2025 to which she submitted a reply on 23.06.2025.
17. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that certain allegations which are not mentioned in the charge sheet have also been looked into by the Inquiry Officer and were proved against the petitioner which is incorrect as is evident from the records of the case. As regard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fact that the provisions of Rule 7, 9 and 10 of Rules of 1999 have not been followed while passing the order impugned, has already been discussed in the judgement as passed in Writ A No.9632 of 2025 vide order dated 24.07.2025. Thus, in view of above, the aforesaid grounds are not legally sustainable.
18. In matters involving allegations of misappropriation of mid-day-meal funds is concerned, the impugned order cannot be challenged on the ground that only two and a half charges were proved out of 7 charges when the main allegation of misuse of mid-day-meal funds is there. Thus, the authorities concerned were justified in passing the punishment order.
19. As regards the allegations of mala fide against respondent no.1, neither from the records any ground has been taken nor in the oral submissions any such argument was placed which could prove the mala fide against the respondent no.1, therefore, the aforesaid grounds has no legs to stand.
20. The judgements, as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the first case i.e. Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), inquiry was conducted pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, which was to be done accordingly. The second and third case i.e. Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra) and Radhey Kant Khare (supra), relate to passing of order avoiding major punishment for which a proper inquiry was required prior to passing the dismissal order, thus the same are also not applicable in the present facts of the case. Another judgement i.e. Sanoj Kumar (supra), deals with warranting major penalty of terminating the petitioner therein from his service wherein proper inquiry is required under Rule 7 of Rules of 1999. All the aforesaid judgements, referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable in the facts of the present case.
21. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that certain objections have been raised pertaining to the absence of specific dates and ancillary procedural references in the order impugned. The learned counsel has contended that such omissions vitiate the impugned order hence the same is liable to be set aside.
22. The Court is referring some relevant judgements passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, which are as follows:-
(i). The Constitution Bench in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, has emphasized that minor procedural lapses that do not cause prejudice to the delinquent employee or violate the principles of natural justice would not invalidate the order.
(ii). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, it was held that non-mentioning of every document or minor procedural lapses cannot by themselves be grounds to invalidate a disciplinary order unless it causes demonstrable prejudice.
(iii). The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779, held that substance prevails over form; non-mentioning of certain procedural steps would not vitiate the order if the essence of natural justice is maintained.
(iv). While dealing with disciplinary proceedings, the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and 2 Others vs. B. Karunakar & Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727, reiterated that procedural fairness is essential, but a disciplinary proceedings will not be set aside unless the procedural irregularity has caused prejudice.
23. It is imperative to underscore that the solemn purpose of any judicial order is not the pedantic perfection of form, but the faithful administration of justice by adhering to principles of natural justice and application of mind. The adjudicatory process is guided by the substance of justice rather than the superficialities of procedure.
24. The essence of any order lies in its ability to address the core legal and factual controversies, to apply the law with judiciously reasoning, and to render an equitable resolution. In the present case, the punishment order has comprehensively dealt with the determinative issues, examined the evidence on record, and applied the governing legal principles with due care and deliberation.
25. Mere clerical or peripheral omissions, such as inadvertent exclusion of dates or formal particulars, do not, in any measure, impinge upon the legitimacy or efficacy of the order impugned, unless it is demonstrated that such omissions have caused prejudice or miscarriage of justice. No such prejudice has been pleaded or established before this Court.
26. Courts are not expected to exhibit technical exactitude in form to the exclusion of justice. The doctrine of substantial compliance applies with full vigour in such circumstances. As long as any order fulfils its constitutional and legal mandate namely, the fair discussion of facts with application of mind incidental lacunae in presentation or form cannot be permitted to defeat the ends of justice. It would be appropriate to mention that "justice is not a slave of form, but a servant of truth."
27. This Court is of the opinion that a punishment order cannot be held invalid merely on the ground that it does not specifically mention the details of the show cause notice or the written reply submitted by the petitioner, if the substance of both is duly considered and discussed in the order. Unless there is a manifest procedural irregularity or a clear illegality apparent on the face of the record, such minor omissions would not render the order unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned.
28. In view of the above discussion as well as observations made in Writ A No.9632 of 2025 (Dharvendra Pal Singh vs. State of UP and 3 Others), the writ petition is dismissed.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) August, 23, 2025 Rahul.