✦ High Court of India · 20 May 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 20 May 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

20 May 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,221 words

1. Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. for State.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 6.9.2002 at Primary School Bhathwa Pandey, Block Salempur, District- Deoria. He was promoted on the post of Head Master at Primary School on 4.12.2009.

3. The District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 12.7.2011, put the petitioner under suspension on an allegation of forgery on cheque issued for purpose of school expenditure.

4. An F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and he remained in Jail from 10.8.2011 to 18.8.2011 and later on vide order dated

12.3.2012, he was reinstated in service with a direction to stop 2 salary for the above referred period when he was in jail subject to outcome of criminal trial.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 19.12.2014, again put the petitioner under suspension on a ground that during an inspection conducted on 17.12.2014, he was found absent as well as school was also found closed. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was served upon him on 24.12.2014 on following charges. “1. आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቛारा पि(cid:14)नांक 12.07.2011 को ्ቚातः 09.01 बजे अ(cid:5)नी व्यपि(cid:24)गत मो० नं०- 9936767681 से ्ቦी रामू ्ቚसा(cid:14), तत्कालीन सहायक बेसिसक शि$्ቌा अधि’कारी, भलुअनी के व्यपि(cid:24)गत मो० नं० – 9454640553 (cid:5)र फोन करके माँ, बहन की भ्ቌी-भ्ቌी गालिलयां (cid:14)ी गयी। जान से मारने तथा (cid:14)ोनो हाथ काटने की ’मकी (cid:14)ी गयी।

2. आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቛारा ्ቚा० पि3० नईखास, पि3०्ቌे०- भलुअनी, जन(cid:5)(cid:14)- (cid:14)े3रिरया में ्ቚ०अ० के (cid:5)(cid:14) (cid:5)र रहते हुए रंगाई (cid:5)ोताई के म(cid:14) में रू० 5000.00 ʧ̭Five Thousands) का चेक काट कर ्ቇाम ्ቚ’ान से हस्ता्ቌर कराने के बा(cid:14) कू ट रचना करते हुए रू० 25,000.00 ʧ̭Twenty Five Thousands) का ’न आहरिरत कर लिलया गया सिजसके ्ቅम में ्ቇाम ्ቚ’ान ्ቛारा शि$कायत पिकये जाने (cid:5)र तत्कालीन स०बे०शि$०अ० ्ቛारा एल०(cid:5)ी०सी० ए3ं से3ा (cid:5)ुቜኌस्तका लቜኌ?बत पिकया गया सिजसके 3जह से आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቛारा उनसे जातीय (cid:14)ुश्मनी रखा गया।

3. आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቛारा पिकसी अनुसूधिचत जाधित के अधि’कारी जो पिक इनके पिनयं्ቔक भी है। उनके लिखलाफ ’मकी (cid:14)ेना जाधितसूचक $ब्(cid:14)ों का ्ቚयोग करना, ए3ं अ(cid:5)मान जनक $ब्(cid:14)ों का ्ቚयोग पिकया जाना शि$्ቌक से3ा पिनयमा3ली के ्ቚधितकू ल है।"

6. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and explained the reasons for his absence on the date inspection was conducted. After the inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted on 30.1.2015.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inquiry report was not based on explanation submitted by the petitioner on charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, rather Inquiry Officer has 3 made a subsequent inspection on 27.1.2015 and inquiry report was essentially submitted only on basis of a fresh inspection report that petitioner was again found absent from the school. He was on medical leave when earlier inspection was conducted on

17.12.2014. Number of students were less and standard of education was also found to be average.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner ordering him to appear with explanation , but petitioner did not appear on 4.9.2015 to place his case.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated

15.9.2015 was passed by Basic Education Officer, whereby petitioner was demoted to his initial post. Subsequently, representation was rejected by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board on 28.12.2016 Relevant part of order dated 15.9.2015 is mentioned hereinafter: "पिन्ቓHय उ(cid:5)रो(cid:24) पि33ेचना से स्(cid:5)्ቖ है पिक आरोपि(cid:5)त ्ቦी मनोज कु मार िሺसह के पि3रू्ቍ गधितमान अनु$ासनात्मक ्ቚपि्ቅया पि3भागीय पिनयमों ए3ं ्ቚपि्ቅयाओं के अनु्ቅम में, (cid:5)ू्ቓHतया तटस्थ 3 पिनष्(cid:5)्ቌ रू(cid:5) से की गयी है। उ(cid:5)रो(cid:24) जाँच ्ቚपि्ቅया में आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क (cid:5)ूमHतया (cid:14)ोष सिस्ቍ (cid:5)ाये गये है। अतः आरोपि(cid:5)त अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቦी मनोज कु मार िሺसह को (cid:5)याH्቎ साቌኚयों के आ’ार (cid:5)र 3ृह(cid:14) (cid:14)ण्ड का भागी (cid:5)ाते हुए, उ०्ቚ० सरकारी से3क ʧ̭अनु$ासन ए3ं अ(cid:5)ील) पिनयमा3ली, 1999 के तहत इन्हें सहायक अध्या(cid:5)क ्ቚाथपिमक पि3्ቕालय के ्ቚारቜኌ?भक 3ेतन ्ቅम ʧ̭मूल 3ेतन 9300+4200) (cid:5)र (cid:5)(cid:14)ा3नत करतेहुए ्ቚाथपिमक पि3्ቕालय $ाह(cid:5)ुर भीखम, पि3कास ्ቌे्ቔ- (cid:5)थर(cid:14)े3ा, जन(cid:5)(cid:14) – (cid:14)े3रिरया (cid:5)र बहाल पिकया जाता है। "

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that procedure for conducting inquiry for imposing major penalty as provided under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant ʧ̭Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, was not followed. Inquiry report ought to have been 4 submitted on charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and in case some additional fact was required to be inquired, a supplementary charge-sheet ought to have been issued, but the same was not issued as such, consideration in the inquiry report on basis of subsequent inspection was contrary to law.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that petitioner was not granted time to submit his reply to the show cause notice and by an ex-parte order, a major penalty was imposed.

12. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders and submitted that principles of natural justice was substantially complied with and despite opportunity, petitioner failed to submit his reply to the show cause notice, therefore, punishment order was passed.

13. In regard to the submissions of taking note of inquiry report, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further submitted that it only corroborates that petitioner has repeated his misconduct. He further submitted that punishment on the proved charges was neither shocking nor disproportionate.

14. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

15. It is well settled that Inquiry Officer has to consider reply to the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet and in case some additional charges are framed, the delinquent has to be put on notice. However, are referred above, Inquiry Officer during inquiry has conducted a fresh inspection and report thereof was taken note of without putting the petitioner on notice, as such procedure 5 being alien to above referred provision makes the procedure defective.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note that petitioner has sought time to submit his reply to the inquiry report, but the same was not granted, thus the petitioner was not able to place his case before the Disciplinary Authority, thus the principles of natural justice was not completely followed at this stage.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, Court takes note that the charges which were considered to be proved were based on two inspection reports. So far as subsequent inspection report is concerned, it was not communicated to the petitioner, therefore, charges could be considered to be proved. Otherwise also, even on proved charges, punishment of demotion can be considered as disproportionate.

18. Accordingly, impugned orders dated orders dated 15.9.2015 and 28.12.2016 are set-aside and matter is remanded to Disciplinary Authority to initiate departmental proceedings by forwarding copy of inquiry report along with fresh show cause notice to the petitioner so that he may submit his reply within a period of three weeks and thereafter proceedings shall be concluded within a period of six weeks.

19. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad