Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13136 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Sengar,Rahul Chaudhary
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Pradeep Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the complainant.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7.
By way of present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 27.6.2019, by which the services of the petitioners were terminated and order dated 24.6.2019 by which approval was granted by respondent no. 4.
While assailing the impugned order, apart from many other factual grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners has taken specific ground that the impugned order has been passed without following the procedure of law for disciplinary proceeding and straightway the impugned order of termination has been passed. First of all, notice dated 05.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner based upon the inquiry report conducted by the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Division-I, Meerut dated 27.2.2019 and the petitioners were directed to submit reply within seven days, failing which punishment order shall be passed against them in accordance with law. Petitioners submitted reply dated 13.6.2019 to the said notice and has taken clear cut stand that they have never been heard in the inquiry proceeding conducted by the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Division-I, Meerut. Thereafter straightway the impugned order dated 27.6.2019 has been passed terminating the services of the petitioners. He further submitted that neither inquiry officer was appointed nor any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. No inquiry proceeding has ever been contemplated as provided in Rules, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 7.8.2015 passed in Service Single No. 3335 of 2001 (Akhtyar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secy. Home and 3 others).
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Smt. Babita Tyagi, Head Mistress of the said Institution was also terminated along with petitioners by Authorized Controller and she has challenged the same by filing Writ-A No. 10358 of 2019 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 by quashing the impugned order dates 27.06.2019 and 24.06.2019.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted that the impugned order dated 27.6.2019 may be quashed with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order adopting due procedure of law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned orders dated 27.6.2019 and 24.6.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 are hereby quashed. The respondent no. 4 is directed to pass a fresh order adopting due procedure of law after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties including the respondent no. 5, maximum within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Sartaj