Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7339 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rozi Khan Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 5.
The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the notices dated 22.03.2021, 08.04.2021 and 13.04.2021 whereby an explanation has been called for from the petitioner as to why she is not attending the college.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Madarsa Darool Uloom Kadariya Nooriya, Narokhar, District Sonbhadra under the scheme 'Madarsa Adhunikikaran Yojana' on 26.12.2013.
It appears that the petitioner is not attending the college and accordingly, show cause notices have been issued asking her to explain as to why she is not attending the college.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is settled in law that the Court should not entertain the writ petition against a show cause notice unless notice is per se illegal, without jurisdiction and having been issued by an authority with mala fide intention.
In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the notices impugned are without jurisdiction.
He only submits that manager of college has taken cheque book and pass- book of petitioner in his custody and is pressuring the petitioner to sign the cheque for release of stipend. Thus, he submits that notices have been mala fidely issued.
It is worth mentioning that petitioner alleges that cheque enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition has been filled in by the manager but there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then on previous occasion, the cheque of whatever amount is given by the petitioner to the manager on his pressure for release of stipend, the amount paid through said cheque must have been debited from the account of petitioner, and the petitioner could have been produced details of account to prove her contention that previously also stipend has been paid to petitioner after she has signed the cheque in favour of manager. Thus, the allegation of mala fide is baseless.
For the reasons given above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and, is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that if petitioner submits her explanation to show cause notices within a period of three weeks from today, the enquiry against her shall be concluded by competent authority within a period of three months strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 S.Sharma