Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9581 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following relief:
"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the proceeding initiated by the Respondent No. 2 on the complaint of respondent no. 3 dated 23.8.2018 against the petitioner."
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk vide order dated 12.12.2009 and he joined the services on 18.12.2009. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 3 herein approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 52997 of 2009 claiming appointment on the post on which, the petitioner was appointed. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2009. It is alleged that subsequently, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 25.3.2010. The Respondent No. 3 once again challenged the approval order granted for the appointment of the petitioner by filing second Writ Petition No. 22269 of 2010, which is said to be pending. It is stated that the Respondent No. 3 once again made a complaint with regard to the appointment of the petitioner before the Assistant Director of Education on which, a detailed enquiry was conducted and an order dated 12.11.2012 was passed rejecting the complaint of the Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 once again challenged the order dated 12.11.2012 by filing a Writ Petition No. 1016 of 2013, which was dismissed by this Court.
It is stated that after dismissal of the complaint and no relief from this Court, once again a complaint has been filed before the Assistant Director of Education questioning the appointment of the petitioner. On the said complaint, a report was called for from the Manager of the petitioner and the petitioner has been asked to participate in the enquiry.
The contention of the petitioner, in sum and substance, is that the continuing enquiry against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and despite loosing and conclusion of the complaint made by the Respondent No. 3, time and again, the complaints are being made, which is leading to harassment of the petitioner.
The matter requires consideration. Issue notice to Respondent No. 3.
Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2.
All the Respondents shall file their counter affidavit within six weeks. Two weeks thereafter are granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Until further orders, the enquiry initiated at the behest of the Respondent No. 3 and in which the petitioner was call for to participate vide communication dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure No. 14) shall remain stayed.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 vinay