Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13527 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Upadhyay And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Grijesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.P. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Petitioners by means of present writ petition have assailed the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by respondent no.2 by which, District Basic Education Officer, Deoria has directed to the Committee of Management of the College, who is appointing authority of the petitioners, to terminate the services of the petitioners and the consequential order dated 08.09.2021 passed by respondent no.4. by which, Committee of Management of the college terminated the services of the petitioners.
Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1978') prescribed the procedure to conduct an enquiry in case of a confirmed teachers and in the present case no procedure provided in the Rules 16 of 1978 Rules has been followed. Accordingly, he submits that order impugned dated 31.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 are not sustainable and liable to be set aside. Petitioners in this respect have made necessary averments in paragraph 31 to 44 of the writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, states that the petitioners have obtained appointment on the basis of forged approval order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Deoria dated 21.12.2011 which is alleged to have been issued by the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari but then Basic Shiksha Adhikari has denied that he has signed the said order, therefore, the order dated 21.12.2011 is not sustainable.
Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are confirmed employees and they have been paid regular salary. As regard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that services of the petitioners have been terminated on the charge that they have obtained appointment on the basis of forged approval order dated 21.12.2011. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are confirmed teachers and the procedure as contemplated under Rule 16 of the 1978 Rules provides that Enquiry Officer before issuing a chargesheet, fixing of date, time and place for enquiry and issuing of show cause notice before imposing the punishment, is necessarily to be followed before imposing major punishment whereas the impugned orders have been passed without following the said procedure. The instructions on the point as to whether the enquiry was conducted is silent, even the learned Standing Counsel could not demonstrate from the order impugned that any enquiry as contemplated under Rule 16 of 1978 Rules has been conducted before passing impugned order.
In such view of the facts, the orders impugned cannot be sustained, accordingly, orders impugned dated 31.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 are set aside with liberty to respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed subject to observation made above.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Mohit