Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2864 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kayyum Ali And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Nagar Vikas, Lucknow And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Dhirendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners 7 in number before this Court are Corporator of Nagar Palika Parishad, Moradabad. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondent-authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.8.
In nutshell, the case of the petitioners are that by advertisement dated 28.5.1999 for the appointment of post of Clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, Thakurdwara, Moradabad, 12 candidates applied. Except the respondent no.8, all the candidates were having mark- sheets/certificates issued by the U.P. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The respondent no.8 was having Prathama and Madhyama certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. As the petitioners who are Corporators were not aware of the fact that the respondent no.8 has committed such a fraud one of the petitioner, Hafizul Rahman made an application before the Collector, Moradabad along with copy of judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No.45538 of 2016, in which, it was held that Prathama and Madhyama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination.
The contention of the petitioners are that fearing removal from service, respondent no.8 on 3.12.2018 submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement before the Sub Divisional Officer/Administration/Officer Incharge, Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar.
According to the petitioners, respondent no.8 is trying to get away from the disciplinary proceedings.
The petitioners apprehend that the application dated 3.12.2018 moved by the respondent no.8 may be allowed by respondent nos.3 and 7 allowing him to retire voluntarily. The petitioners contends that respondent no.8 should not be allowed to retire voluntarily with all benefits.
Sri J.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015, in which the brother of complainant was appointed as Assistant Teacher by playing fraud. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea on the ground that complainant has no locus standi. In special appeal, the question regarding maintainability of appeal was decided and it was held that as there was element of public interest involved, where a person who has obtained public employment and is in receipt of salary from an institution which is aided by the State, seeks to do, so on the basis of documentary evidence on record indicating a particular date of birth. The Division Bench, in view of the above, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge and remanded back the matter holding that the petition was maintainable.
Sri Singh, relying upon the said judgment submits that as the respondent no.8 is drawing salary from the public Ex- checker and once his application for voluntary retirement is accepted by respondent no.3 and 7, he would get the benefits so accrued which will be paid from the Public Ex- chequer.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petition is not maintainable as it is on the behest of complainant who has no locus to maintain the said petition and once the petitioners had submitted the complaint to the Collector, their job was over and it is for the authorities concerned to act on the said complaint.
Having considered the rival arguments of the parties and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015, I have no hesitation to hold that as the respondent no.8 is in public employement and holding a post of Clerk in Nagar Palika Parishad, Thakurdwara, Moradabad and is drawing salary from Public Ex-chequer, he cannot be allowed to play fraud. The Division Bench so placed before the Court was also of the view that, in case, there was element of public interest involved, the case cannot be thrown out of Court.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the respondent nos.3 and 7 may look into the complaint filed by the petitioners and decide the same before the consideration of voluntary retirement application of the respondent no.8.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 S. Singh