Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24428 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Hridaya Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Khare Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
By order of this Court dated 19.11.2018 Sri Rajesh Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 was directed to seek instructions in the matter as the petitioner who was duly working and discharging his duties, his salary came to be stopped by order dated 4.5.2018 on the ground that on the basis of some complaint, an enquiry has been set up to look into his academic records and verify the same.
It clearly transpires from the record that after the order was was passed on 4.5.2018 a fact finding enquiry was conducted in the matter and report was submitted by the enquiry committee with signature of Om Prakash Mishra, Block Education Officer, Pahari and Sri Chandra Mohand Singh, Block Education officer, Chitrarkoot on 11.9.2018.
In normal course of administrative exercise of power, the authority expected to pass order either recalling the order dated 4.5.2018 or should have passed an order rejecting the enquiry report.
Now as the very instruction that have been received by Sri Rajesh Khre, Advocate today, it has come out that some further complaint was made by one Mahendra Singh on the basis of which yet another enquiry has been ordered.
This Court fails to understand as to why the concerned District Basic Education Officer has not believed on enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officers appointed by him and has merely proceeded to pass order of further enquiry in the matter on the basis of a private complaint.
It is well settled principle of law that in administrative decision making process, the authority should give due application of mind, but in the instant case, I find that authority has clearly proceeded to pass order without application of mind at all in the matter which has resulted in serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner who is duly appointed and the order impugned is being continued but for another enquiry. The conduct of the respondent has caused adverse civil consequences.
The matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to file reply within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Meanwhile until further order of this Court the effect and operation of the order dated 4.5.2018 shall remain stayed. It is also directed that no further enquiry will be conducted into the matter without leave of the Court Petitioner who is discharging duties as Assistant Teacher in the institution, shall be permitted to discharge his duties as such and shall be paid salary month by month as and when it falls due.
The order, however, will not preclude the authority from verifying the academic records of the petitioner if need be.
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Sanjeev