Alauddin v. State of U.P

1. Heard Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, despite notices, none appeared on behalf of respondent no.4- Committee of Management.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by respondent no.4 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. At the stage of admission, this Court has considered and passed the following order dated 04.07.2014:- "1. The petitioner is a Principal in a madarsa namely Madarsa Darul- Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrul-Uloom, Nand Nagar, Basti. He is aggrieved by his termination order dated 29 April 2014.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wants a direction to decide his representation in terms of Rule-34 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali.

3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the private respondent submits that Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 has been enacted by U.P. Act No. 29 of 2004, wherein Section 24 provides that the conditions of service may be prescribed by the Regulations, however it is contended that Section 32 empowers the State Government to make the Rules. It is stated that the Rules are yet to be framed.

4. Sri Ojha has invited attention of the Court to an order of this Court dated 09.05.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 25871 of 2013 (Alauddin v. State of U.P. & 3 others), wherein an Ad-interim Mandamus was issued to the State Government to inform the Court as to why the Rules and Regulations have not been framed even after 9 years of enactment of U.P. Act No. 29 of 2004. It is stated at the Bar that said interim mandamus is yet to be complied.

5. The Court has also provided an interim protection to the petitioner therein by issuing a direction that no third party right shall be created. The relevant part of which reads as under; "Until further orders of this Court, the respondent institution shall not create any third party rights in respect of the post that was occupied by the petitioner"

6. Considering the facts of this case, learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The State Government is reminded the order passed by this Court in Alauddin (supra), whereby an ad-interim mandamus has been issued.

7. List this case on 11 August 2014. Till the next date of listing the protection provided in the order dated 09.05.2013 shall also be extended to the petitioner.

8. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to Sri J.S. Tomer, learned Standing Counsel for its communication and compliance without payment of usual charges."

3. Petitioner was appointed as Principal in fourth- respondent Institution in the year 2005 and the said appointment was approved by the third-respondent vide order dated 08.07.2005 and he continued to discharge as Principal in the fourth- respondent Institution. In the year 2011 there are certain disputes between the petitioner as well as respondent no.4. Based on the complaints the Registrar has passed an order stopping the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 26.11.2012 and the District Minority Welfare has passed the consequential order on 24.12.2012. The said proceedings were assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.1409 of 2013 wherein interim orders were granted on 10.01.2013. To circumvent the said circumstances, the fourth- respondent has passed an order dated 30.01.2014 placing the petitioner under suspension and on the same day charges were also framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed reply on 11.02.2014. After receipt of the reply, surprisingly, without conducting any inquiry the fourth- respondent- Committee of Management has passed impugned order on 29.04.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions that the impugned order is utter violation of principles of natural justice while imposing the major penalty/ punishment one should not conduct inquiry without providing opportunity to the affected person, but in the instant case the impugned order itself clarifies that only based on the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charges, the fourth- respondent has passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. It is not only contrary to the law as well as principles of natural justice and also the procedure contemplated under the Madrasa Act. To support his contention he has relied in the averments made in paragraph 29 and 31 of the writ petition and paragraph nos.10 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that, in view of the interim orders granted by this Court the said post was not filled till the retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitle for all consequential benefits.

5. No counsel has appeared to defend the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Left with no option this Court has perused the averments made in paragraph nos.29 and 31 of the writ petition and paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit. In fact there are specific averments made in the writ petition with regard to the principles of natural justice but in the counter affidavit there is no denial or not provided any dates of hearing or notice to the petitioner with regard to conducting of inquiry. Apart from that perusal of the impugned order clearly establishes the Committee was constituted against the suspended Principal but there is no mention about any inquiry and the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry.

6. In view of the said circumstances, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Madrasa Act. As contended by the petitioner in fact after retirement there is no provision made in the Madrasa Act or in the Regulations to proceed with the inquiry. In the said circumstances, the impugned order 29.04.2014 is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is set aside. In view of not having any provision for proceeding with the inquiry after retirement, left with no option, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 AdityaG ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, despite notices, none appeared on behalf of respondent no.4- Committee of Management.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by respondent no.4 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. At the stage of admission, this Court has considered and passed the following order dated 04.07.2014:- "1. The petitioner is a Principal in a madarsa namely Madarsa Darul- Uloom Ahle Sunnat Badrul-Uloom, Nand Nagar, Basti. He is aggrieved by his termination order dated 29 April 2014.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wants a direction to decide his representation in terms of Rule-34 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali.

3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the private respondent submits that Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 has been enacted by U.P. Act No. 29 of 2004, wherein Section 24 provides that the conditions of service may be prescribed by the Regulations, however it is contended that Section 32 empowers the State Government to make the Rules. It is stated that the Rules are yet to be framed.

4. Sri Ojha has invited attention of the Court to an order of this Court dated 09.05.2013 passed in Writ-A No. 25871 of 2013 (Alauddin v. State of U.P. & 3 others), wherein an Ad-interim Mandamus was issued to the State Government to inform the Court as to why the Rules and Regulations have not been framed even after 9 years of enactment of U.P. Act No. 29 of 2004. It is stated at the Bar that said interim mandamus is yet to be complied.

5. The Court has also provided an interim protection to the petitioner therein by issuing a direction that no third party right shall be created. The relevant part of which reads as under; "Until further orders of this Court, the respondent institution shall not create any third party rights in respect of the post that was occupied by the petitioner"

6. Considering the facts of this case, learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The State Government is reminded the order passed by this Court in Alauddin (supra), whereby an ad-interim mandamus has been issued.

7. List this case on 11 August 2014. Till the next date of listing the protection provided in the order dated 09.05.2013 shall also be extended to the petitioner.

8. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to Sri J.S. Tomer, learned Standing Counsel for its communication and compliance without payment of usual charges."

3. Petitioner was appointed as Principal in fourth- respondent Institution in the year 2005 and the said appointment was approved by the third-respondent vide order dated 08.07.2005 and he continued to discharge as Principal in the fourth- respondent Institution. In the year 2011 there are certain disputes between the petitioner as well as respondent no.4. Based on the complaints the Registrar has passed an order stopping the salary of the petitioner vide order dated 26.11.2012 and the District Minority Welfare has passed the consequential order on 24.12.2012. The said proceedings were assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.1409 of 2013 wherein interim orders were granted on 10.01.2013. To circumvent the said circumstances, the fourth- respondent has passed an order dated 30.01.2014 placing the petitioner under suspension and on the same day charges were also framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed reply on 11.02.2014. After receipt of the reply, surprisingly, without conducting any inquiry the fourth- respondent- Committee of Management has passed impugned order on 29.04.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions that the impugned order is utter violation of principles of natural justice while imposing the major penalty/ punishment one should not conduct inquiry without providing opportunity to the affected person, but in the instant case the impugned order itself clarifies that only based on the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charges, the fourth- respondent has passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. It is not only contrary to the law as well as principles of natural justice and also the procedure contemplated under the Madrasa Act. To support his contention he has relied in the averments made in paragraph 29 and 31 of the writ petition and paragraph nos.10 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that, in view of the interim orders granted by this Court the said post was not filled till the retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has retired on 31.03.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitle for all consequential benefits.

5. No counsel has appeared to defend the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Left with no option this Court has perused the averments made in paragraph nos.29 and 31 of the writ petition and paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit. In fact there are specific averments made in the writ petition with regard to the principles of natural justice but in the counter affidavit there is no denial or not provided any dates of hearing or notice to the petitioner with regard to conducting of inquiry. Apart from that perusal of the impugned order clearly establishes the Committee was constituted against the suspended Principal but there is no mention about any inquiry and the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to participate in the said inquiry.

6. In view of the said circumstances, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice and also the provisions of the Madrasa Act. As contended by the petitioner in fact after retirement there is no provision made in the Madrasa Act or in the Regulations to proceed with the inquiry. In the said circumstances, the impugned order 29.04.2014 is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is set aside. In view of not having any provision for proceeding with the inquiry after retirement, left with no option, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release all consequential benefits to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 AdityaG ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad