Dr. Shiv Charan Gautam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin

1. Short counter affidavit filed today in Court by Sri Akash Dixit, Advocate along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 4 be kept on record.

2. Impleadment application filed today in Court by Sri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate on behalf of Sri Vijai Pratap Singh who is to be working as an Officiating Principal, City Intermediate College, Barabanki be also kept on record.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and prays that the matter may be finally decided without any reply to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as a regular principal in the City Intermediate College, Barabanki and to pay him regular salary. 2 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that while the petitioner was working as a principal, after due inquiry, vide order dated

24.02.2025, a copy of which is annexure 4, the manager of the institution had proposed to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

6. The approving authority namely the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 21.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition disapproved the dismissal order rather imposed withholding of two increments permanently upon the petitioner.

7. However, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid punishment order having been imposed by the competent authority i.e the District Inspector of Schools and the dismissal order having been disapproved, the petitioner has not been permitted to join as principal and is also not being paid the salary.

8. On the other hand, Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has argued on the basis of averments contained in the short counter affidavit that the conduct of the petitioner was of such a nature that he cannot be permitted to join and that the competent authority has patently erred in law in disapproving the proposal of dismissal of the petitioner that has been sent by the committee of management and having imposed the penalty on his own accord for which an appeal has been filed before the Joint Director of Education and as such, there cannot be any occasion for permitting the petitioner to join as principal to pay him salary. However, Sri Dixit fairly states that no stay order has been granted by the appellate authority per which the order as passed by the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the dismissal order may have been stayed. Sri Akash Dixit, Advocate has also indicated that the conduct of the petitioner is of such a nature including the allegations of sexual harassment and he cannot be 3 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025 permitted to work as a principal.

9. On the other hand, Sri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate who has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of the officiating principal states that he is officiating principal since

21.09.2024 and that the petitioner has wrongly been paid salary till May, 2025.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that while the petitioner was working as a principal, after due inquiry, the respondent no. 4 had sent a proposal for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The same did not find favour with the competent authority/approving authority i.e the District Inspector of Schools who vide letter dated 21.06.2025 disapproved the dismissal order and instead directed for withholding of two increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner.

11. However, despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner has not been permitted to join and he is also not being paid salary.

12. It is not the case of the respondents that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.06.2025 per which the dismissal order has not been approved, has been set aside or stayed by either any competent Court of law or even in the appeal which has been filed by the respondent no. 4. Thus, it is apparent that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.06.2025 disapproving the dismissal order stands good as of date.

13. So far as the argument regarding conduct of the petitioner, suffice it to say that once the impediment which was there of continuing the petitioner as a principal has already gone considering the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools as such, it is always open for the respondent no. 4 or any other competent authority to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner for the said conduct, if not already 4 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025 done, but in absence thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion for the respondents to not permit the petitioner to join as a principal and to be not paid salary.

14. So far as the argument of Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel seeking impleadment that he is working as an officiating principal since 21.09.2024, suffice it to say that as soon as a regular principal comes back there cannot be any occasion for an officiating arrangement to continue.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 4 is directed to permit the petitioner to work as a principal be paid regular salary month to month provided there is no legal impediment. September 22, 2025 Pachhere/- (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Short counter affidavit filed today in Court by Sri Akash Dixit, Advocate along with Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 4 be kept on record.

2. Impleadment application filed today in Court by Sri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate on behalf of Sri Vijai Pratap Singh who is to be working as an Officiating Principal, City Intermediate College, Barabanki be also kept on record.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and prays that the matter may be finally decided without any reply to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as a regular principal in the City Intermediate College, Barabanki and to pay him regular salary. 2 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that while the petitioner was working as a principal, after due inquiry, vide order dated

24.02.2025, a copy of which is annexure 4, the manager of the institution had proposed to dismiss the petitioner from the service.

6. The approving authority namely the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 21.06.2025, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition disapproved the dismissal order rather imposed withholding of two increments permanently upon the petitioner.

7. However, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid punishment order having been imposed by the competent authority i.e the District Inspector of Schools and the dismissal order having been disapproved, the petitioner has not been permitted to join as principal and is also not being paid the salary.

8. On the other hand, Sri Akash Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has argued on the basis of averments contained in the short counter affidavit that the conduct of the petitioner was of such a nature that he cannot be permitted to join and that the competent authority has patently erred in law in disapproving the proposal of dismissal of the petitioner that has been sent by the committee of management and having imposed the penalty on his own accord for which an appeal has been filed before the Joint Director of Education and as such, there cannot be any occasion for permitting the petitioner to join as principal to pay him salary. However, Sri Dixit fairly states that no stay order has been granted by the appellate authority per which the order as passed by the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the dismissal order may have been stayed. Sri Akash Dixit, Advocate has also indicated that the conduct of the petitioner is of such a nature including the allegations of sexual harassment and he cannot be 3 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025 permitted to work as a principal.

9. On the other hand, Sri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate who has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of the officiating principal states that he is officiating principal since

21.09.2024 and that the petitioner has wrongly been paid salary till May, 2025.

10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that while the petitioner was working as a principal, after due inquiry, the respondent no. 4 had sent a proposal for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The same did not find favour with the competent authority/approving authority i.e the District Inspector of Schools who vide letter dated 21.06.2025 disapproved the dismissal order and instead directed for withholding of two increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner.

11. However, despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner has not been permitted to join and he is also not being paid salary.

12. It is not the case of the respondents that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.06.2025 per which the dismissal order has not been approved, has been set aside or stayed by either any competent Court of law or even in the appeal which has been filed by the respondent no. 4. Thus, it is apparent that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.06.2025 disapproving the dismissal order stands good as of date.

13. So far as the argument regarding conduct of the petitioner, suffice it to say that once the impediment which was there of continuing the petitioner as a principal has already gone considering the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools as such, it is always open for the respondent no. 4 or any other competent authority to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner for the said conduct, if not already 4 WRIA No. 11003 of 2025 done, but in absence thereof, there does not appear to be any occasion for the respondents to not permit the petitioner to join as a principal and to be not paid salary.

14. So far as the argument of Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel seeking impleadment that he is working as an officiating principal since 21.09.2024, suffice it to say that as soon as a regular principal comes back there cannot be any occasion for an officiating arrangement to continue.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 4 is directed to permit the petitioner to work as a principal be paid regular salary month to month provided there is no legal impediment. September 22, 2025 Pachhere/- (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench