High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Vachaspati Tiwari, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.1 and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007, whereby the writ petition, filed by the private-respondent No.1 was allowed quashing the impugned order dated 30.07.2007 and consequential orders dated 14.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, while giving liberty to the appellants to continue with the enquiry to its logical conclusion.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the order dated 15.07.2025 has primarily urged that the private- respondent No.1 was appointed on the temporary basis on the post of 'Ahalmad' on 01.02.2007. Since, there were certain complaints against the private-respondent No.1, hence, his services were terminated on 28.06.2007. Since, the said order mentioned the complaint of bribery against the private- respondent No.1, hence, the said order was assailed by the private-respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4237 (S/S) of 2007 which came to be allowed on 27.07.2007, whereby the order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside leaving it open for the appellants to pass afresh order in accordance with law indicating no stigma against the writ petitioner.

4. The submission is that even though the order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside but simultaneously the Court had directed the appellants to pass afresh order without casting any stigma on the writ petitioner, hence, the appellants had passed the order dated 30.07.2007. The said order of termination simplicitor was in furtherance of the directions passed by the writ Court dated 27.07.2007 and in such circumstances while the aforesaid facts were taken note of, however, it was not open for the writ Court to have allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination simplicitor as it is now well settled that the service of a temporary employee can be terminated simplicitor and in such matters, the scope of judicial review is limited.

5. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the writ Court has erred in setting aside the order dated 30.07.2007 on the ground of equitable consideration which was not available to the private-respondent No.1 and thus the reasoning upon which the impugned order has been set aside is not sound, accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.1 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the order dated 30.07.2007 was challenged by the private- respondent No.1 in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007. Since, the time was granted to the appellants to file their counter affidavit, but even after about two years, it was not filed, consequently, the writ Court by means of its order dated 10.11.2009 granted an interim protection staying the operation of the order dated 30.07.2007.

7. It is further urged that the private-respondent No.1 continued to work since then and even for a short period when the writ petition of the private-respondent No.1 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.12.2015, but the private-respondent No.1 immediately moved an application for recall on 06.01.2016.

8. The appellants filed their response on 21.05.2016 and the writ Court recalled the order of dismissal dated 21.05.2025 and taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2007 by allowing the writ petition and it noticed that since the private-respondent No.1 has served for about 16 years and in the peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that the order is bad, hence, the said order does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated on 28.06.2007, but since the said order was stigmatic, hence, it was set aside. It is also undisputed that while the termination order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside, a direction was issued to the appellants to pass afresh order without ascribing any stigma and in furtherance thereof, the order impugned in the instant writ petition dated 30.07.2007 was passed.

11. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the appellants did not file any counter affidavit despite time of about two years having been granted and it is only thereafter on 10.11.2009, the writ Court granted an interim protection and under the said orders, the private-respondent No.1 continued to work.

12. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that since 10.11.2009, the appellants pursued the matter before the writ Court either on the stay vacation application or on the merits of the petition itself. No remedy was availed by the appellants against the interim order dated 10.11.2009 and as such the private-respondent No.1 continued to work.

13. The aforesaid Writ-A No.5821 of 2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.12.2015 and on 06.01.2016 an application for recall was moved. What is significant to note that even though a copy of the recall application dated 06.01.2016 was served on the counsel for the appellants, yet no effort was made to take the order dated 30.07.2007 to its logical conclusion as no consequential order was passed then in light of the dismissal of the writ petition. Despite the writ petition remained dismissed and the recall application was pending since January, 2016 till 21.05.2025 when the writ petition was restored, yet the writ petitioner continued to work.

14. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that while the writ petition of the private-respondent No. 1 was dismissed for want of prosecution, February, 2025 on fresh allegations of misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued to the private-respondent No.1.

15. An important fact which needs to be considered is that the averment regarding fresh incident of misconduct and the issuance of charge-sheet was informed by the appellants in reply to the objections to the application for recall which had been moved by the private-respondent No.1. This fact was not brought on record once the writ petition had been restored to its original number by way of supplementary pleadings.

16. It is in the aforesaid context that the writ Court, while considering the recall application, found that the application for recall had been filed by the private-respondent No.1 within time and the cause shown was sufficient, hence, the dismissal order was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number.

17. In the aforesaid backdrop where the private-respondent No.1 had put in service of more than 16 years and the fact that the writ petition of the the private-respondent No.1 had been dismissed for want of prosecution and the said application for recall remanded pending for about 9 years and no genuine effort was made nor the consequential order in furtherance of the initial order of termination dated 30.07.2007 was passed by the appellants, hence, taking overall facts, the writ Court has exercised its jurisdiction and the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unreasoned.

18. Once the writ Court had exercised its discretion in a positive way, this Court will be slow in reversing it. Since, the appellants have already issued a charge-sheet on 13.02.2025 to the private-respondent No.1 on fresh charges, hence, taking note of the aforesaid, the writ Court has permitted the appellants to take the same to its logical conclusion and this view cannot be said to be unreasoned especially when the rights of the appellants have been protected by permitting them to take the enquiry instituted in terms of the charge-sheet dated 13.02.2025 to its logical conclusion.

19. Once the appellants themselves initiated proceedings afresh and issued a charge-sheet dated 13.02.2025, [during this period when there was no interim order rather the writ petition of the private-respondent No.1 stood dismissed] and proceeded against the private-respondent No.1 for disciplinary action on fresh ground, hence, at this stage, it is not open for the appellants to state that the private-respondent No.1 was in any manner responsible or guilty for concealment relating to the status of his writ petition.

20. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Rekha Rani, (2011) 11 SCC 441 though as the proposition may not be disputed, but in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the proposition has limited applicability especially when it is now well settled to be disputed that even a temporary employee if proceeded against by issuing a charge-sheet then he has a right to defend and a simplicitor order will not be sufficient considering the long length of service and subsequent event having intervened.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

22. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Vachaspati Tiwari, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.1 and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007, whereby the writ petition, filed by the private-respondent No.1 was allowed quashing the impugned order dated 30.07.2007 and consequential orders dated 14.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, while giving liberty to the appellants to continue with the enquiry to its logical conclusion.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the order dated 15.07.2025 has primarily urged that the private- respondent No.1 was appointed on the temporary basis on the post of 'Ahalmad' on 01.02.2007. Since, there were certain complaints against the private-respondent No.1, hence, his services were terminated on 28.06.2007. Since, the said order mentioned the complaint of bribery against the private- respondent No.1, hence, the said order was assailed by the private-respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4237 (S/S) of 2007 which came to be allowed on 27.07.2007, whereby the order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside leaving it open for the appellants to pass afresh order in accordance with law indicating no stigma against the writ petitioner.

4. The submission is that even though the order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside but simultaneously the Court had directed the appellants to pass afresh order without casting any stigma on the writ petitioner, hence, the appellants had passed the order dated 30.07.2007. The said order of termination simplicitor was in furtherance of the directions passed by the writ Court dated 27.07.2007 and in such circumstances while the aforesaid facts were taken note of, however, it was not open for the writ Court to have allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order of termination simplicitor as it is now well settled that the service of a temporary employee can be terminated simplicitor and in such matters, the scope of judicial review is limited.

5. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the writ Court has erred in setting aside the order dated 30.07.2007 on the ground of equitable consideration which was not available to the private-respondent No.1 and thus the reasoning upon which the impugned order has been set aside is not sound, accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.1 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the order dated 30.07.2007 was challenged by the private- respondent No.1 in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007. Since, the time was granted to the appellants to file their counter affidavit, but even after about two years, it was not filed, consequently, the writ Court by means of its order dated 10.11.2009 granted an interim protection staying the operation of the order dated 30.07.2007.

7. It is further urged that the private-respondent No.1 continued to work since then and even for a short period when the writ petition of the private-respondent No.1 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.12.2015, but the private-respondent No.1 immediately moved an application for recall on 06.01.2016.

8. The appellants filed their response on 21.05.2016 and the writ Court recalled the order of dismissal dated 21.05.2025 and taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ Court set aside the order dated 30.07.2007 by allowing the writ petition and it noticed that since the private-respondent No.1 has served for about 16 years and in the peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that the order is bad, hence, the said order does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated on 28.06.2007, but since the said order was stigmatic, hence, it was set aside. It is also undisputed that while the termination order dated 28.06.2007 was set aside, a direction was issued to the appellants to pass afresh order without ascribing any stigma and in furtherance thereof, the order impugned in the instant writ petition dated 30.07.2007 was passed.

11. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the appellants did not file any counter affidavit despite time of about two years having been granted and it is only thereafter on 10.11.2009, the writ Court granted an interim protection and under the said orders, the private-respondent No.1 continued to work.

12. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that since 10.11.2009, the appellants pursued the matter before the writ Court either on the stay vacation application or on the merits of the petition itself. No remedy was availed by the appellants against the interim order dated 10.11.2009 and as such the private-respondent No.1 continued to work.

13. The aforesaid Writ-A No.5821 of 2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.12.2015 and on 06.01.2016 an application for recall was moved. What is significant to note that even though a copy of the recall application dated 06.01.2016 was served on the counsel for the appellants, yet no effort was made to take the order dated 30.07.2007 to its logical conclusion as no consequential order was passed then in light of the dismissal of the writ petition. Despite the writ petition remained dismissed and the recall application was pending since January, 2016 till 21.05.2025 when the writ petition was restored, yet the writ petitioner continued to work.

14. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that while the writ petition of the private-respondent No. 1 was dismissed for want of prosecution, February, 2025 on fresh allegations of misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued to the private-respondent No.1.

15. An important fact which needs to be considered is that the averment regarding fresh incident of misconduct and the issuance of charge-sheet was informed by the appellants in reply to the objections to the application for recall which had been moved by the private-respondent No.1. This fact was not brought on record once the writ petition had been restored to its original number by way of supplementary pleadings.

16. It is in the aforesaid context that the writ Court, while considering the recall application, found that the application for recall had been filed by the private-respondent No.1 within time and the cause shown was sufficient, hence, the dismissal order was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number.

17. In the aforesaid backdrop where the private-respondent No.1 had put in service of more than 16 years and the fact that the writ petition of the the private-respondent No.1 had been dismissed for want of prosecution and the said application for recall remanded pending for about 9 years and no genuine effort was made nor the consequential order in furtherance of the initial order of termination dated 30.07.2007 was passed by the appellants, hence, taking overall facts, the writ Court has exercised its jurisdiction and the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unreasoned.

18. Once the writ Court had exercised its discretion in a positive way, this Court will be slow in reversing it. Since, the appellants have already issued a charge-sheet on 13.02.2025 to the private-respondent No.1 on fresh charges, hence, taking note of the aforesaid, the writ Court has permitted the appellants to take the same to its logical conclusion and this view cannot be said to be unreasoned especially when the rights of the appellants have been protected by permitting them to take the enquiry instituted in terms of the charge-sheet dated 13.02.2025 to its logical conclusion.

19. Once the appellants themselves initiated proceedings afresh and issued a charge-sheet dated 13.02.2025, [during this period when there was no interim order rather the writ petition of the private-respondent No.1 stood dismissed] and proceeded against the private-respondent No.1 for disciplinary action on fresh ground, hence, at this stage, it is not open for the appellants to state that the private-respondent No.1 was in any manner responsible or guilty for concealment relating to the status of his writ petition.

20. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Rekha Rani, (2011) 11 SCC 441 though as the proposition may not be disputed, but in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the proposition has limited applicability especially when it is now well settled to be disputed that even a temporary employee if proceeded against by issuing a charge-sheet then he has a right to defend and a simplicitor order will not be sufficient considering the long length of service and subsequent event having intervened.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.5821 of 2007, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

22. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench