Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. There is a consensus amongst the parties that the facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order of this Court dated

22.07.2020.

3. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 22.07.2020 is reproduced below: "Case is taken up through Video Conferencing in terms of orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice taking into consideration the COVID-19 situation. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari i.e. respondent no.4. Present petition has been filed aggrieved against the orders dated 15.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 4 respectively, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that through the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He further 2 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 submits that a show cause notice had been given to the petitioner on

17.01.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-29 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was required to submit her reply within three days and it was also provided that in case the reply is not found satisfactory or the same is not received then action under the provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, '1999 Rules') shall be taken against her. It is contended that the petitioner submitted her reply but subsequent thereto through the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, her reply was found unsatisfactory and she has straightaway been dismissed by the same order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once in the show cause notice it was provided that in case the explanation is not found satisfactory then action shall be taken against her under 1999 Rules consequently her dismissal from service without following the provisions of 1999 Rules vitiates the said order. On the same ground, the impugned order dated 15.01.2020 is also vitiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, submit that the said orders have been passed as it was found that the petitioner had obtained appointment fraudulently by contending that she was working as Shiksha Mitra but her certificate of Shiksha Mitra was found fake consequently her dismissal order does not call for any interference by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what is prima facie apparent is that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 17.01.2020 it was categorically provided that in case the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not found satisfactory then action against her under the provisions of 1999 Rules shall be taken. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 indicates that the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory consequently it was incumbent upon the respondents to have taken action against the petitioner under the provisions of 1999 Rules and could not have proceeded to dismiss the petitioner straightaway. Accordingly, it is apparent that only a short legal question is involved i.e. whether the respondents could have dismissed the petitioner straightaway or should have resorted to the provisions of 1999 Rules for 3 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 holding of an inquiry prior to dismissing the petitioner from service. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, submits that the said order has already come into effect. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from dismissal, respondents are also proceeding initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, as short legal question is involved consequently the respondents are granted a week's time to file a short counter affidavit specifically adverting to the aforesaid legal issue as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within next four days. List this case after two weeks."

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have passed an order dated

24.07.2020, a copy of which is annexure 31 to the petition, whereby, based on the order impugned dated 24.01.2020, the excess amount paid to the petitioner was also sought to be recovered.

5. However the said order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2023.

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the petitioner, who claims to be a validly appointed Head Master, was issued with a show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 whereby he was required to submit a reply within three days and it was provided that in case the reply was not found satisfactory or the same is not received then action under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") shall be taken.

7. Even though the petitioner submitted his reply and it was found unsatisfactory yet she was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020 without conducting any proceedings under the Rules, 1999.

8. Subsequent thereto, an order of recovery dated 24.07.2020 was 4 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 also passed.

9. Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 have been unable to controvert the averments made in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 but submit that the proceedings under the Rules, 1999 were not adopted as the degree of B.Ed. that had been given by the petitioner, was itself found to be fake and thus, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The said order was also based on the order dated 15.01.2020 that had been passed by the respondent No.1 with regard to the fake documents annexed by various teachers including the petitioner.

10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that while the petitioner was working as Head Master, she has been issued with a show cause notice dated

17.01.2020 whereby she was required to submit a reply within three days failing which, action under the Rules, 1999 was to be taken which could also be taken in case her reply was found unsatisfactory. Despite the petitioner having submitted her reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory, instead of proceeding under the Rules, 1999 the respondents have straightaway dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 24.01.2020. In turn, the said order has also been passed considering an order dated

15.01.2020 that had been passed by the respondent No.1 whereby certain persons including the petitioner were found to have been working on the basis of fake documents.

11. Once the respondents have themselves professed in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 that in case the petitioner failed to submit her reply within three days or her reply would be found unsatisfactory, then proceedings under Rules, 1999 shall be taken then there was no occasion for the respondents to have straightaway dismissed her from service without proceeding under the Rules, 1999 more particularly when the petitioner had submitted her reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the 5 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 modus adopted by the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service, without professing what had been indicated in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020, clearly cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Incidentally the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 still continues to stand and has neither been cancelled or withdrawn.

12. The recovery order dated 24.07.2020 is also based on the dismissal order dated 24.01.2020 and as such, would also become vitiated in the eyes of law.

13. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The orders impugned dated 24.01.2020 and

26.07.2020, copies of which are annexure 2 and 31 to the petition respectively, are quashed.

14. Consequences to follow.

15. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law. November 13, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. There is a consensus amongst the parties that the facts of the case have already been set forth in detail in the order of this Court dated

22.07.2020.

3. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 22.07.2020 is reproduced below: "Case is taken up through Video Conferencing in terms of orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice taking into consideration the COVID-19 situation. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari i.e. respondent no.4. Present petition has been filed aggrieved against the orders dated 15.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 passed by respondent nos. 1 and 4 respectively, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that through the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He further 2 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 submits that a show cause notice had been given to the petitioner on

17.01.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-29 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was required to submit her reply within three days and it was also provided that in case the reply is not found satisfactory or the same is not received then action under the provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, '1999 Rules') shall be taken against her. It is contended that the petitioner submitted her reply but subsequent thereto through the impugned order dated 24.01.2020, her reply was found unsatisfactory and she has straightaway been dismissed by the same order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once in the show cause notice it was provided that in case the explanation is not found satisfactory then action shall be taken against her under 1999 Rules consequently her dismissal from service without following the provisions of 1999 Rules vitiates the said order. On the same ground, the impugned order dated 15.01.2020 is also vitiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, submit that the said orders have been passed as it was found that the petitioner had obtained appointment fraudulently by contending that she was working as Shiksha Mitra but her certificate of Shiksha Mitra was found fake consequently her dismissal order does not call for any interference by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what is prima facie apparent is that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 17.01.2020 it was categorically provided that in case the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not found satisfactory then action against her under the provisions of 1999 Rules shall be taken. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 indicates that the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory consequently it was incumbent upon the respondents to have taken action against the petitioner under the provisions of 1999 Rules and could not have proceeded to dismiss the petitioner straightaway. Accordingly, it is apparent that only a short legal question is involved i.e. whether the respondents could have dismissed the petitioner straightaway or should have resorted to the provisions of 1999 Rules for 3 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 holding of an inquiry prior to dismissing the petitioner from service. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4, submits that the said order has already come into effect. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from dismissal, respondents are also proceeding initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, as short legal question is involved consequently the respondents are granted a week's time to file a short counter affidavit specifically adverting to the aforesaid legal issue as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within next four days. List this case after two weeks."

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have passed an order dated

24.07.2020, a copy of which is annexure 31 to the petition, whereby, based on the order impugned dated 24.01.2020, the excess amount paid to the petitioner was also sought to be recovered.

5. However the said order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2023.

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the petitioner, who claims to be a validly appointed Head Master, was issued with a show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 whereby he was required to submit a reply within three days and it was provided that in case the reply was not found satisfactory or the same is not received then action under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1999") shall be taken.

7. Even though the petitioner submitted his reply and it was found unsatisfactory yet she was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2020 without conducting any proceedings under the Rules, 1999.

8. Subsequent thereto, an order of recovery dated 24.07.2020 was 4 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 also passed.

9. Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 have been unable to controvert the averments made in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 but submit that the proceedings under the Rules, 1999 were not adopted as the degree of B.Ed. that had been given by the petitioner, was itself found to be fake and thus, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The said order was also based on the order dated 15.01.2020 that had been passed by the respondent No.1 with regard to the fake documents annexed by various teachers including the petitioner.

10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that while the petitioner was working as Head Master, she has been issued with a show cause notice dated

17.01.2020 whereby she was required to submit a reply within three days failing which, action under the Rules, 1999 was to be taken which could also be taken in case her reply was found unsatisfactory. Despite the petitioner having submitted her reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory, instead of proceeding under the Rules, 1999 the respondents have straightaway dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 24.01.2020. In turn, the said order has also been passed considering an order dated

15.01.2020 that had been passed by the respondent No.1 whereby certain persons including the petitioner were found to have been working on the basis of fake documents.

11. Once the respondents have themselves professed in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 that in case the petitioner failed to submit her reply within three days or her reply would be found unsatisfactory, then proceedings under Rules, 1999 shall be taken then there was no occasion for the respondents to have straightaway dismissed her from service without proceeding under the Rules, 1999 more particularly when the petitioner had submitted her reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the 5 WRIA No. 12843 of 2020 modus adopted by the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service, without professing what had been indicated in the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020, clearly cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Incidentally the show cause notice dated 17.01.2020 still continues to stand and has neither been cancelled or withdrawn.

12. The recovery order dated 24.07.2020 is also based on the dismissal order dated 24.01.2020 and as such, would also become vitiated in the eyes of law.

13. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The orders impugned dated 24.01.2020 and

26.07.2020, copies of which are annexure 2 and 31 to the petition respectively, are quashed.

14. Consequences to follow.

15. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law. November 13, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench