Naresh Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others) Court No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional CSC for State and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for respondent - Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur. 2. In both writ petitions, there are 22 petitioners who were appointed as Drivers with respondent - Parishad through a selection process initiated in pursuance of advertisement dated 12.04.2008 and petitioners were granted appointment by individual appointment letter dated 23.04.2008. 3. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by District Magistrate, Rampur against the Chairman of concerned Parishad on the basis of a complaint that due procedure prescribed in appointment of Drivers was not followed and a report dated 09.12.2009 was submitted wherein various irregularities were pointed out and action was proposed against the Chairman. 4. In view of above, a show cause notice was issued to Chairman of respondent – Parishad, however, its outcome is not on record. 5. It is also brought on record that said Chairman has suffered with criminal proceedings and during criminal trial, he died and, therefore, trial was abated, however, there are observations that large scale irregularities were committed in selection process. 6. On the basis of report of District Magistrate as well as Government Order dated 06.08.2011, the appointment of petitioners were cancelled vide order dated 12.09.2011. 7. The G.O. dated 06.08.2011 as well as order of cancellation of appointment of petitioners dated 12.09.2011 are challenged in this writ petition. 8. This Court has passed following interim orders on 28.09.2011 2 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 and 18.10.2011 whereby impugned orders were stayed :- “55941/2011 Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 & 2 may file counter affidavit within a month. Issue notice to respondent nos.3 & 4. Steps may be taken within a week. Upon steps being taken office will dispatch notices fixing 14.11.2011. Petition may be listed on the said date. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any notice and affording opportunity. It is further submitted that the cancellation of appointment in fact amounts to termination /dismissal as such notice and opportunity is a must. Till further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the order dated 12.09.2011, Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition shall remain stayed. The petitioners, who are twenty one in numbers and who were appointed as Drivers in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur in April, 2008, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 6th August, 2011 issued by the State Government by which directions have been issued to the District Magistrate, Rampur to cancel the appointments of the twenty two drivers. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad for cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. It is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the directions have been issued by the State Government for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners without providing any opportunity to the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 6th August, 2011 for cancellation of their appointments as also the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad 3 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 deserves to be set aside. In this connection he has also placed before the Court the interim order dated 28th September, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 55941 of 2011 filed by one such driver. Connect with Writ Petition No. 55941 of 2011 and list on 14th November, 2011. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by registered post. Steps may be taken within a week. The respondents may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Senior Counsel learned In view of the submissions advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, petitioners, the operation of the impugned order dated 6th August, 2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as also the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 annexed as Annexure-8-A to 8-U to the writ petition shall remain stayed until further orders.”
9. It is not much disputed that petitioners have taken benefit of respective interim orders and are still working. 10. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that not only principles of natural justice were violated i.e. without putting petitioners on notice, adverse order of termination was passed. He further submits that even reasons assigned in report are contrary to records that Rules referred are not applicable to the appointment of petitioners as Drivers. The State Government has no power to conduct an inquiry except in circumstances mentioned in U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 which does not have right to cancel appointment of employee given by respondent – Parishad. 11. Learned counsel for respondents have not able to dispute that petitioners were not individually put on notice before respective impugned order was passed, though by referring inquiry report, they submit that there were large scale irregularities and were mentioned in inquiry report, also summarized in paragraph 26 of Writ A No. 55941/2011 and for reference, same is quoted below :- “26. That the order impugned does not assign any reason for holding the selection proceeding to be invalid. The alleged objections against the selection proceedings which can be culled out from the aforesaid report are summarized below; 4 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 (i) Despite repeated directions the record pertaining to the selection and appointment of 22 drivers had not been District Magistrate; available (ii) Mere possession of driving license was not sufficient proof of possession of the technical Qualification of driving and such knowledge of driving was required to be tested in an actual test of driving. procedure specified
12.12.1962 The (iii) notification appointment of a driver could not be treated to be valid after the lapse of 48 years while with regard to other department of the State government rnment different rules stood prescribed. (iv) In the list of applicants prepared by the Nagar Palika Parishad the 144 applicants did not include the name of Rashid whose name however stood included Tax Tax Superintendent Superintendent had made entries and signature by different pen and ink in the selection proceedings. The Assistant select list. (v) The U.P. Government Driver Service Rules, 1993 specified the constitution of a selection committee which included the Regional Transport Officer was his nominee as a Member, which did not stand specified in the selection proceedings.”
12. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 13. It is a case where petitioners were undisputedly not put on notice before impugned order was passed whereby their services were terminated after about 3 years of their selection and petitioners have taken benefit of interim order passed in the year 2011 and they are still working i.e. even after 14 years. 14. As referred above, it may be a case where there are however, process, irregularities circumstances, that petitioners have is no allegation committed any irregularity or were part of irregularity committed during selection process as well as that since admittedly no notice selection 5 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 was issued to petitioners granting opportunity to confront the inquiry report as well as that petitioners have taken benefit of interim order for last 14 years, a case of causing interference is made out. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, orders dated 06.08.2011 and 12.09.2011, challenged in both writ petitions, are hereby set aside and both writ petitions are disposed of that in case respondents are still willing to proceed against petitioners on basis of inquiry report, concerned respondents may put the petitioners on notice so that petitioners may place their case either before State or before concerned employer, as the case may be. 16. It is made clear that Court has not entered into merit of case so far as other legal issues involved in present case are concerned. September 9, 2025 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional CSC for State and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for respondent - Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur. 2. In both writ petitions, there are 22 petitioners who were appointed as Drivers with respondent - Parishad through a selection process initiated in pursuance of advertisement dated 12.04.2008 and petitioners were granted appointment by individual appointment letter dated 23.04.2008. 3. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by District Magistrate, Rampur against the Chairman of concerned Parishad on the basis of a complaint that due procedure prescribed in appointment of Drivers was not followed and a report dated 09.12.2009 was submitted wherein various irregularities were pointed out and action was proposed against the Chairman. 4. In view of above, a show cause notice was issued to Chairman of respondent – Parishad, however, its outcome is not on record. 5. It is also brought on record that said Chairman has suffered with criminal proceedings and during criminal trial, he died and, therefore, trial was abated, however, there are observations that large scale irregularities were committed in selection process. 6. On the basis of report of District Magistrate as well as Government Order dated 06.08.2011, the appointment of petitioners were cancelled vide order dated 12.09.2011. 7. The G.O. dated 06.08.2011 as well as order of cancellation of appointment of petitioners dated 12.09.2011 are challenged in this writ petition. 8. This Court has passed following interim orders on 28.09.2011 2 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 and 18.10.2011 whereby impugned orders were stayed :- “55941/2011 Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 & 2 may file counter affidavit within a month. Issue notice to respondent nos.3 & 4. Steps may be taken within a week. Upon steps being taken office will dispatch notices fixing 14.11.2011. Petition may be listed on the said date. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any notice and affording opportunity. It is further submitted that the cancellation of appointment in fact amounts to termination /dismissal as such notice and opportunity is a must. Till further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the order dated 12.09.2011, Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition shall remain stayed. The petitioners, who are twenty one in numbers and who were appointed as Drivers in the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur in April, 2008, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 6th August, 2011 issued by the State Government by which directions have been issued to the District Magistrate, Rampur to cancel the appointments of the twenty two drivers. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad for cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. It is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the directions have been issued by the State Government for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners without providing any opportunity to the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 6th August, 2011 for cancellation of their appointments as also the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad 3 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 deserves to be set aside. In this connection he has also placed before the Court the interim order dated 28th September, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 55941 of 2011 filed by one such driver. Connect with Writ Petition No. 55941 of 2011 and list on 14th November, 2011. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by registered post. Steps may be taken within a week. The respondents may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Senior Counsel learned In view of the submissions advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, petitioners, the operation of the impugned order dated 6th August, 2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as also the consequential orders dated 12th September, 2011 annexed as Annexure-8-A to 8-U to the writ petition shall remain stayed until further orders.”
9. It is not much disputed that petitioners have taken benefit of respective interim orders and are still working. 10. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that not only principles of natural justice were violated i.e. without putting petitioners on notice, adverse order of termination was passed. He further submits that even reasons assigned in report are contrary to records that Rules referred are not applicable to the appointment of petitioners as Drivers. The State Government has no power to conduct an inquiry except in circumstances mentioned in U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 which does not have right to cancel appointment of employee given by respondent – Parishad. 11. Learned counsel for respondents have not able to dispute that petitioners were not individually put on notice before respective impugned order was passed, though by referring inquiry report, they submit that there were large scale irregularities and were mentioned in inquiry report, also summarized in paragraph 26 of Writ A No. 55941/2011 and for reference, same is quoted below :- “26. That the order impugned does not assign any reason for holding the selection proceeding to be invalid. The alleged objections against the selection proceedings which can be culled out from the aforesaid report are summarized below; 4 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 (i) Despite repeated directions the record pertaining to the selection and appointment of 22 drivers had not been District Magistrate; available (ii) Mere possession of driving license was not sufficient proof of possession of the technical Qualification of driving and such knowledge of driving was required to be tested in an actual test of driving. procedure specified
12.12.1962 The (iii) notification appointment of a driver could not be treated to be valid after the lapse of 48 years while with regard to other department of the State government rnment different rules stood prescribed. (iv) In the list of applicants prepared by the Nagar Palika Parishad the 144 applicants did not include the name of Rashid whose name however stood included Tax Tax Superintendent Superintendent had made entries and signature by different pen and ink in the selection proceedings. The Assistant select list. (v) The U.P. Government Driver Service Rules, 1993 specified the constitution of a selection committee which included the Regional Transport Officer was his nominee as a Member, which did not stand specified in the selection proceedings.”
12. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 13. It is a case where petitioners were undisputedly not put on notice before impugned order was passed whereby their services were terminated after about 3 years of their selection and petitioners have taken benefit of interim order passed in the year 2011 and they are still working i.e. even after 14 years. 14. As referred above, it may be a case where there are however, process, irregularities circumstances, that petitioners have is no allegation committed any irregularity or were part of irregularity committed during selection process as well as that since admittedly no notice selection 5 WRIA No. 55941 of 2011 was issued to petitioners granting opportunity to confront the inquiry report as well as that petitioners have taken benefit of interim order for last 14 years, a case of causing interference is made out. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, orders dated 06.08.2011 and 12.09.2011, challenged in both writ petitions, are hereby set aside and both writ petitions are disposed of that in case respondents are still willing to proceed against petitioners on basis of inquiry report, concerned respondents may put the petitioners on notice so that petitioners may place their case either before State or before concerned employer, as the case may be. 16. It is made clear that Court has not entered into merit of case so far as other legal issues involved in present case are concerned. September 9, 2025 N. Sinha (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad