Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6901 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Smita Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Singh,Nand Kishore Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State and Durga Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.6.2021 whereby the services of the petitioner had been terminated.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed under Samagra Shiksha Project as full time teacher in Hindi/Sanskrit Subject (General Category) on fixed honorarium Rs. 9,000/- per month at Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidayalaya, Sumerpur, District Hamirpur on 06.07.2011.
A perusal of appointment order shows that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual.
The petitioner claims to be working since 2011, however, on 11.6.2021, one of the child, who had gone to the school for taking Transfer Certificate (TC), unfortunately, met with an accident and passed away despite medical treatment. On account of the said incident the order dated 12.6.2021 was passed recording therein that there were no instructions either for opening the school in question or distribution of Transfer Certificate (TC) and the action of the petitioner and one other person was arbitrary. It is recorded in the order that the calling of the students for collection of TC has not been directed by any Officer and two persons (including the petitioner) were solely responsible for calling the children without there being any instructions and the said act of calling the students resulted in an accident and unfortunately one of the students died. It has been further recorded that the act of the petitioner and the other teacher Radha Devi was an act of indiscipline and full of arbitrariness as such the contract in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the order impugned is bad in as much as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order which was necessary in view of the fact that the impugned order was stigmatic in nature.
A perusal of the order dated 12.6.2021 makes it clear that no opportunity or explanation was called from the petitioner prior to passing of the said order. On bare perusal, the order impugned is stigmatic in nature. Thus, without keeping the matter pending, the order dated 12.6.2021 is set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Puspendra