Smt. Poonam Mishra v. State of U.P. and others
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190606 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6150 of 2024 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,Deepak Singh,G.A.,Kameshwar Prasad Mishra,Rajesh Pandey
Legal Reasoning
5. Respondent no. 5 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 54720 of 2007 before this Court wherein vide order dated 06.11.2007 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, specific direction was issued by this Court in favour of concerned District Magistrate and in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, District Magistrate decided the complaint of respondent no. 5 on dated 25.02.2008 in favour of the petitioner. 6. Again one more writ petition has been preferred in shape of Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 54204 of 2008 wherein vide order dated 20.10.2008 passed by co- ordinate Bench of this Court, District Magistrate, Sonbhadra was directed to decide the complaint of respondent no. 5 and vide order dated 30.04.2009 passed by concerned District Magistrate the complaint of respondent no. 5 was again decided, meaning thereby the repeated decisions were taken up by the concerned District Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. 7. Being aggrieved with the decisions, the challenge to the documents pertains to the petitioner was persisting with the respondent no. 5 which culminated into lodging FIR through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as Case Crime no. 150 of 2010 wherein after culmination of the detailed investigation carried out by concerned Investigating Officer, final report has been submitted in favour of the petitioner. 8. For challenging the final report, submitted by concerned Investigating Officer, respondent no. 5 preferred protest petition and the same has been converted into Complaint Case no. 265 of 2012 in which the petitioner has been summoned and thereafter having versions from the petitioner, the same was rejected vide order dated 03.08.2013. 9. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.08.2013, respondent no. 5 preferred Criminal Revision no. 133 of 2013 and the same was decided by way of remitting back the matter to learned court concerned for deciding afresh vide order dated 19.07.2014. 10. For challenging the order dated 19.07.2014, petitioner preferred Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 13556 of 2014 wherein the interim protection was granted on dated 11.08.2014. 11. In pursuance to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. C.B.I. (2018) 6 SCC 299 an application under Section 482 no. 8291 of 2023 was preferred at the behest of respondent no. 5 and the matter was again remitted back by co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the learned concerned court for proceeding with Complaint Case. In pursuance to the directions issued by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in proceeding under Section 482, learned concerned court proceeded with the complaint case no. 265 of 2012 which was finally dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2023. 12. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.05.2023, respondent no. 5 preferred Criminal Revision no. 65 of 2023 and the same was decided vide order dated 27.03.2024 which impugned the present petition through which matter was again remanded back to learned concerned court for deciding afresh on the basis of the discussions made in the revision. 13. The above mentioned inter se proceedings culminated into several rounds of litigation between the parties but one thing remained same that petitioner is still continuing with the services which was extended in favour of him being the Shiksha Mitra and now at present he is duly appointed as Assistant Teacher. 14. Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that at each and every stage when the appointment was extended in favour of the petitioner, all the educational documents were duly verified and thereafter the appointment over the post of Assistant Teacher has been confirmed in favour of him and in pursuance to the same petitioner is at present rendering his services uninterrupted. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner for substantiating his arguments placed reliance upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Application u/s 482 no. 45566 of 2019 (Smt. Swati Devi & 6 others vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 22.07.2024. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that once the matter will be decided by learned concerned court on the basis of the discussion and in the light of the order passed by learned revisional court, no controversy shall remain between the parties and the grievances of respondent no. 5 shall be settled finally. 17. In view of the aforementioned submissions extended by learned rival counsels for the parties and in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, let the court concerned may proceed with the complaint case no. 265 of 2012 as directed by revisional court and decide the same specifically in the light of the order dated 30.06.2023 wherein the Government Order dated 24.04.1995 has already been considered, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner till the disposal of the complaint case no. 265 of 2012 and he may not be compelled to appear in person except for few necessary dates if required by learned concerned court.
Arguments
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 27.3.2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.1, Sonbhadra in Criminal Revision no. 65 of 2023, "Smt. Poonam Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others". 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that Mr. Sumit Shukla, learned counsel who appeared on last occasion, is in preoccupation because of his marriage and as such he is not available for assistance as assured by him. 4. Sri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that he is not challenging the appointment of the petitioner and not aggrieved with the same, rather learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents pertains to the petitioner upon which appointment has been given is under challenge by way of filing complaint before the District Magistrate.
Decision
18. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Shaswat