Birendra Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. Challenge is laid to the order dated 15th of September 2025, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner on 26th of November 2018, has been withdrawn and the direction is also made to recover the excess amount. Notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is here by dispensed with as the matter is decided at the admission stage. Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a vacancy of Lecturer (Economics) arose in the year 1994 due to ad hoc promotion granted to one Amar Nath Mishra to the post of ad hoc Principal and the said post subsequently fell vacant, after retirement of Amar Nath Mishra. He submitted that a request was sent by the respondent no.5 to the Service Selection Board for filling the post of Lecturer (Economics) on 11th of July 1997, and subsequently, on 1st of November 1996 an advertisement was issued and thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed on 20th of December 1996. He submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularised and after regularisation of services, the petitioner was drawing salary in grade pay 5400 and he was granted selected grade vide order dated 22nd of March 2016. He further submitted that the petitioner was also 2 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 granted the promotional pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 grade pay of 6600, with effect from 26th November 2018. He added that all of a sudden, noticing an audit report, the District Inspector of Schools, vide impugned order, has withdrawn the promotional pay scale, which was granted seven years ago. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of only an audit report, the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn, which is impermissible under the law. He further submitted that while passing the order impugned, the petitioner has not been associated and, as such, the order impugned dated 15th of September 2025 is adversely affecting the petitioner. He submits that not only the promotional pay scale has been withdrawn but the alleged excessive payment made to the petitioner after the order dated 26th November 2018. has been directed to be recovered. Therefore submission is that the order dated 15th of September 2025 is erroneous and unlawful. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has rightly considered the audit report and once it is found that there are certain irregularities while granting promotional pay scale, the same has been withdrawn. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the promotional pay scale to the petitioner was granted in the year 2018 and on the basis of an audit report, the impugned order has been passed, whereby the order of promotional pay scale has been withdrawn. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing, prior to passing the order dated 15th of September 2025. This Court finds that the promotional pay scale has been granted seven years ago, and this materially affects the rights of the petitioner, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is must. This court has also noticed that only on the basis of audit report, the order impugned has been passed, which is impermissible as per the law settled in the case of Dilip Singh Rana Vs State of UP, reported in 1993 SCC OnLine All 455. Paras 5 and 6 of the 3 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 Judgment are quoted hereinunder:- "5. The audit report could not be used as substantive evidence of the genuineness or bona fide nature of the transactions referred to in the accounts. Audit is official examination of the accounts in order to make sure that the accounts have been properly maintained according to the prescribed mode. Audit report is a statement of facts pertaining to the maintenance of accounts coupled with the opinion of the Auditor in respect thereof based on those facts. In "A Concise Dictionary of Law" (Oxford University Press) it is stated that an auditor's report must state whether or not in the auditor's opinion, the accounts have been properly prepared and given a true and fair view of the Company's financial position. If the audit shows that the accounts are not properly maintained, it may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of even belief that some wrong has been committed in respect of the matters to which the accounts relate. But the commission of that wrong cannot be proved by the opinion of the Auditors contained in the audit report.
6. It has to be proved like any other fact by relevant and admissible evidence. In words and Phrases, Volume IV-A, it is stated at page 577 that "Audit" means formal examination and verification of accounts, vouchers and other records and the result of such an examination. The duty of an Auditor is verification and not detection (see in re: Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No. 2), (1896) 2 Ch 279). In Halsbury's Laws of England the duty and function of an Auditor appointed to audit the accounts of a Company are described in the following words:- "It is the duty of an Auditor to verify not merely the arithmetical accuracy of the balance-sheet, but its susbstantial accuracy and to see that it includes the particulars required by the articles and the statute, and contains a correct representation of the state of the Company's affairs. While, therefore, it is not his duty to consider whether the business is prudently conducted, he is bound to consider and report to the share-holders whether the balance-sheet shows the true financial position of the Company. To see this, he must examine the books and take reasonable care to see that their contents are substantially accurate." Thus, it is settled law that only on the basis of audit report, unless corroborated by other evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn. For the forgoing reasons and submissions, the order dated 15th of September 2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to take a fresh 4 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other stakeholders, if any, within a period of sixty days from the date of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings initiated by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby allowed. October 9, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. Challenge is laid to the order dated 15th of September 2025, passed by respondent no.3, whereby the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner on 26th of November 2018, has been withdrawn and the direction is also made to recover the excess amount. Notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is here by dispensed with as the matter is decided at the admission stage. Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a vacancy of Lecturer (Economics) arose in the year 1994 due to ad hoc promotion granted to one Amar Nath Mishra to the post of ad hoc Principal and the said post subsequently fell vacant, after retirement of Amar Nath Mishra. He submitted that a request was sent by the respondent no.5 to the Service Selection Board for filling the post of Lecturer (Economics) on 11th of July 1997, and subsequently, on 1st of November 1996 an advertisement was issued and thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed on 20th of December 1996. He submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularised and after regularisation of services, the petitioner was drawing salary in grade pay 5400 and he was granted selected grade vide order dated 22nd of March 2016. He further submitted that the petitioner was also 2 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 granted the promotional pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 grade pay of 6600, with effect from 26th November 2018. He added that all of a sudden, noticing an audit report, the District Inspector of Schools, vide impugned order, has withdrawn the promotional pay scale, which was granted seven years ago. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of only an audit report, the promotional pay scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn, which is impermissible under the law. He further submitted that while passing the order impugned, the petitioner has not been associated and, as such, the order impugned dated 15th of September 2025 is adversely affecting the petitioner. He submits that not only the promotional pay scale has been withdrawn but the alleged excessive payment made to the petitioner after the order dated 26th November 2018. has been directed to be recovered. Therefore submission is that the order dated 15th of September 2025 is erroneous and unlawful. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has rightly considered the audit report and once it is found that there are certain irregularities while granting promotional pay scale, the same has been withdrawn. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the promotional pay scale to the petitioner was granted in the year 2018 and on the basis of an audit report, the impugned order has been passed, whereby the order of promotional pay scale has been withdrawn. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing, prior to passing the order dated 15th of September 2025. This Court finds that the promotional pay scale has been granted seven years ago, and this materially affects the rights of the petitioner, and therefore, the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is must. This court has also noticed that only on the basis of audit report, the order impugned has been passed, which is impermissible as per the law settled in the case of Dilip Singh Rana Vs State of UP, reported in 1993 SCC OnLine All 455. Paras 5 and 6 of the 3 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 Judgment are quoted hereinunder:- "5. The audit report could not be used as substantive evidence of the genuineness or bona fide nature of the transactions referred to in the accounts. Audit is official examination of the accounts in order to make sure that the accounts have been properly maintained according to the prescribed mode. Audit report is a statement of facts pertaining to the maintenance of accounts coupled with the opinion of the Auditor in respect thereof based on those facts. In "A Concise Dictionary of Law" (Oxford University Press) it is stated that an auditor's report must state whether or not in the auditor's opinion, the accounts have been properly prepared and given a true and fair view of the Company's financial position. If the audit shows that the accounts are not properly maintained, it may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of even belief that some wrong has been committed in respect of the matters to which the accounts relate. But the commission of that wrong cannot be proved by the opinion of the Auditors contained in the audit report.
6. It has to be proved like any other fact by relevant and admissible evidence. In words and Phrases, Volume IV-A, it is stated at page 577 that "Audit" means formal examination and verification of accounts, vouchers and other records and the result of such an examination. The duty of an Auditor is verification and not detection (see in re: Kingston Cotton Mill Company (No. 2), (1896) 2 Ch 279). In Halsbury's Laws of England the duty and function of an Auditor appointed to audit the accounts of a Company are described in the following words:- "It is the duty of an Auditor to verify not merely the arithmetical accuracy of the balance-sheet, but its susbstantial accuracy and to see that it includes the particulars required by the articles and the statute, and contains a correct representation of the state of the Company's affairs. While, therefore, it is not his duty to consider whether the business is prudently conducted, he is bound to consider and report to the share-holders whether the balance-sheet shows the true financial position of the Company. To see this, he must examine the books and take reasonable care to see that their contents are substantially accurate." Thus, it is settled law that only on the basis of audit report, unless corroborated by other evidence, no adverse inference can be drawn. For the forgoing reasons and submissions, the order dated 15th of September 2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to take a fresh 4 WRIA No. 11713 of 2025 decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other stakeholders, if any, within a period of sixty days from the date of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings initiated by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby allowed. October 9, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench