Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10392 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kiran Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv),Shatrughan Sonwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri B.P. Singh appears for respondent nos.2 and 3.
Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 20.05.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh-respondent no.2 and for a direction to respondent authorities to release the salary of the petitioner with arrears including all consequential benefits and not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher.
The record in question reflects that the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 30.6.2011. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 6.11.2020 from the office of District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh stating therein that a list of 76 teachers has been found in the records recovered from the vehicle of accused Yadunandan Yadav, arrested by STF, who have been selected fraudulently and are working as Assistant Teacher in different districts of the State. In response to the aforesaid notice the petitioner has submitted her detailed reply along with all documents and certificates as required by the respondents on 19.11.2020. After submission of detailed reply, the respondent has again sent a notice to the petitioner after six months vide impugned order/letter dated 20.5.2021 again requiring the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 25.5.2021 with all original documents and certificates and also directing the Block Education Officer to stop the salary of the petitioner till further orders. Pursuant thereto the petitioner has again submitted all documents with detailed reply vide letter dated 25.5.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that without conducting any enquiry and without finding any evidence only in the garb of show cause notice the salary of the petitioner cannot be stopped. It is being pressed that even though in response to the earlier notice the petitioner has responded but without finalising the said proceeding, if any, the second show cause notice was given on same charges with further direction to Block Education officer to stop the salary of the petitioner. The same cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any proceeding, only in the garb of show cause notice, the salary of the petitioner cannot be stopped. In Ghanshyam Das Varshney v. State of U.P. & Ors. {2015 (2) ADJ 673 (DB) (LB)} the Court held that in the matter of allegations of committing certain irregularities proper enquiry should be conducted. Without holding proper enquiry the punishment cannot be awarded to the employee.
In view of above, the observation in the order impugned qua stopping salary of the petitioner is set aside. With the consent of parties, the matter is relegated to the authority concerned to proceed further in the matter strictly in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands partly allowed accordingly.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 SP/