Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13617 of 2025 Prabal Pratap Singh State Of U.P. And 2 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi : C.S.C., Hare Ram Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hare Ram, learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. On 11th September, 2025, the following order was passed :- "The instructions passed on to the Court today, are kept on record. Heard Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction int he nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in functioning of the of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the regular salary and other benefits for which the petitioner is entitled. (iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. (v) To award the costs of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was made against two teachers, i.e. the petitioner and one Jyoti Rao, regarding misbehaviour with staff 2 WRIA No. 13617 of 2025 members while being in an inebriated condition. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioner has been placed under suspension, however, no action whatsoever has been taken against the other teacher, Jyoti Rao, thereby indicating discriminatory treatment. He further submits that in the explanation given by the petitioner, a dispute with the driver of the District Basic Education Officer has been specifically mentioned on account of which the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed and placed under suspension without due consideration of the aforesaid fact. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3 submits that a charge sheet has already been given to the petitioner on 25.08.2025. Perusal of the records shows that the explanations have been given by both, the petitioner and other teacher, namely, Jyoti Rao against whom complaint was made, but without assigning any reason and in an arbitrary manner, the explanation/reply given by the petitioner has been stated to be unsatisfactory, whereas the explanation/reply given by other teacher, Jyoti Rao has been considered, and the proceedings have been dropped against him. This is a matter of grave concern and apparent discrimination that, despite both individuals being named in the same complaint, only the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary action and placed under suspension, whereas no proceedings, inquiry, or action of any kind has been initiated against Jyoti Rao. This selective treatment raises serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of the authorities concerned. This Court has come across similar instances wherein, on the basis of frivolous or baseless complaints, the District Basic Education Officers have proceeded to initiate disciplinary action against one individual, while conspicuously sparing the other similarly situated person, often for extraneous or ulterior reasons. Such selective and arbitrary action undermines the fairness of disciplinary proceedings and reflects misuse of administrative powers. In one such case, this Court has already taken a serious view of the matter and passed appropriate directions in the case of Writ-A No.12935 of 2025 (Kumari Sharmila vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others). As the charge sheet has already been given to the petitioner, the Court is left with no option but to direct the respondent no.3, i.e. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Etawah to be present before this Court on the next date fixed along with his personal affidavit explaining his conduct. Put up this case on 23.09.2025, as fresh. Learned Chief Standing Counsel as well as the Registrar (Compliance) shall ensure the compliance of this order." In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11th September, 2025, Dr. Rajesh Kumar, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District- Etawah is present before this Court and has filed his personal affidavit, which is taken on record. This Court finds that nothing has been stated in the affidavit regarding discrimination between the petitioner and Jyoti Rao, 3 WRIA No. 13617 of 2025 against whom nearly same allegations were levelled. In paragraph nos.6 & 7, it has been stated that a notice through letter dated 8.8.2025 was issued against the petitioner as well as Jyoti Rao and explanation has been submitted on 19.8.2025 by the petitioner. The petitioner has made a complaint against the employees posted in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah and after mentioning about the misbehavior of the employees posted in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah, has tendered apology in so many words by saying that he is ready to touch the feet of the officer concerned. Without considering the aforesaid, the order impugned has been passed. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3. (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents not to interfere in functioning of petitioner as Assistant Teacher. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to pay the regular salary and other benefits for which the petitioner is entitled." In view of the averments as made in the personal affidavit as filed by the respondent no.3, the order impugned dated 20.08.2025 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.3-District Basic Shiksha, District- Etawah for decision afresh, on merits, strictly in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after giving fresh notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 19.8.2025, as has been done in the case of Jyoti Rao, who has also submitted the same explanation, tendering apology, preferably within a period of three weeks from today, if there is no legal impediment. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. Personal appearance of respondent no.3 i.e. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District- Etawah is exempted. September 23, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad