Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9781 of 2021 Petitioner :- Nirmala Devi Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Pandey,Yogendra Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1, Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided without any counter affidavit.
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Akela Kuberpur, Block-Kudraha, District Basti on 05.08.2010. Later on, the petitioner was transferred to the Primary School Bodwal, Block-Bankati, Basti by the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by respondent no.2 and in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined there and rendered her services with honesty.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling upon her to show cause as to why her services may not be terminated for obtaining appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
The services of the petitioner has been terminated by the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by respondent no.2-District Basic Eduction Officer, Basti on the ground that she got appointment by placing forged and fabricated educational certificates.Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a confirmed teacher and no enquiry, as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, which is applicable to the teacher of Primary School, has been conducted.
It is contended that the disciplinary authority before imposing any major punishment has to conduct enquiry as per Rule 7 of Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1999'), which has been made applicable to the petitioner by virtue of Rule 5 (3) of U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order of termination against the petitioner has been passed without following the due procedure, as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, since, neither any enquiry officer was appointed, nor any charge sheet was issued nor any date, time and place was fixed for conducting the enquiry and thus, the order impugned is not sustainable.
This Court on 11.08.2021 passed the following order:
"Contention is that the petitioner has been terminated without holding any disciplinary enquiry and without granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend her. Submission is that the petitioner has worked for more than ten years and after such a long lapse of time, action taken by the respondents is wholly arbitrary.
Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent may obtain instructions.
Post once again on 03.09.2021 as fresh."
Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner as the petitioner was issued show cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted reply and as her reply was not found satisfactory, thereafter, the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law after following the principle natural justice.
Be that as it may, Rule 5 (3) of the Rules, 1999 provides that the procedure laid down in Rules, 1999 applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings. Rule 7 of Rules 1999 provides the complete procedure, i.e., appointing an enquiry officer, issuing of charge sheet and fixing date and time and place for enquiry and a notice before imposing major punishment, which is required to be followed by the disciplinary authority before passing any order imposing major punishment, but in the instant case, no procedure as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999, has been followed.
Though the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently tried to defend the order impugned, but he could not point out from the impugned order that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 has been followed.
In this view of the fact, the order impugned dated 08.01.2021 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed with liberty to the concerned respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after after conducting the enquiry as per law. In case, if any proceeding is drawn against the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court, it is expected from the petitioner to cooperate in the qnquiry and and in case the petitioner does not cooperate in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority may conclude the enquiry ex-parte.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021/NS