Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALI AHMAD ANSARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ali Ahmad Ansari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23523 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7343 (21 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                                Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23523 of 200

Anil Ahmad Ansari

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Earlier matter had travelled upto this Court by way of Special Appeal No. 360 of 2006 and this court on 19.4.2006 clearly ruled that in respect of dispensation of service of Class IV employee, no prior approval is required. However, matter is remitted back to  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar to consider the fact of the present case in more detail to find out as to whether before removing  Sri Daya Shanr Pandey from service, opportunity was given to him  and as to whether there was compliance in the disciplinary inquiry of the Regulations 36 and 37 of Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As said exercise has not at all been  done by the  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar and he has straight away jumped on the  conclusion  of principles of natural justice  being violated,  in this background Special Appeal Bench was of the opinion  that matter need to be examined by the  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar again with regard to alleged removal of  Sri Daya Shankar Pandey.  Free hand was given to  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar as it was made  clear that Special Appeal Bench was not expressing any opinion  as to whether termination of Sri Daya Shankar Pandey was made after following rules of natural justice or not  and it was left open for the  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar to examine the facts and take fresh decision. Relevant portion of aforementioned judgement is being extracted below:-

"The view of the District Inspector of Schools that the removal of respondent No.4 was to be made after taking prior approval is erroneous. With regard to the observation of the District Inspector of Schools that respondent No.4 was not given any opportunity before passing the order of termination, it is suffice to say that although the said conclusion has been recorded but the  District Inspector of Schools has not examined the facts in detail. He has only observed that letters were not sent to respondent no.4 from the nearest post office. We are afraid that the said reason cannot be said to be valid reason. If the registered letter was sent with correct address, the fact that it was sent from a post office which was not nearest is not of much consequence. The  District Inspector of Schools ought to have considered the facts of the case in more detail to find out as to whether before removing respondent no.4 from service opportunity was given to him and whether there was compliance in the disciplinary inquiry of the Regulations 36 and 37 of Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Without adverting to the relevant facts and materials the  District Inspector of Schools has jumped on the conclusion that principles of natural justice is violated. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that matter need to be examined by the  District Inspector of Schools again with regard to alleged removal of respondent no.4. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion as to whether termination of respondent no.4 was made after following rules of natural justice or not and it is for the  District Inspector of Schools to examine the facts and take a decision.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we set aside the order of  District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 2006 and remand the matter to the  District Inspector of Schools for consideration afresh with regard to the alleged removal of respondent no.4. We have been informed that respondent no.4, in the meantime, retired on 31st August, 2005 after having joined the duties after the order dated  3rd March, 2003. It will be open for the District Inspector of Schools to decide the issue, as aforesaid and pass other consequential orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of."

             Thereafter matter was taken up by the  District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar and by means of the same  District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar has proceeded to mention that Sri Daya Shankar Pandey pursuant to the order passed by the  District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar dated 3.3.2003 joined and has ultimately been superannuated on 31.8.2005.  Thereafter District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar has proceeded to mention that appointment of the petitioner is illegal.

District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar in the present case has grossly misdirected himself as he has placed reliance on order dated 3.3.2003, which has already been set aside in Special Appeal  of this court. Special Appeal Bench had made clear cut direction  to District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar to decide the validity of the termination proceeding, as to whether there was compliance in the disciplinary inquiry of the Regulations 36 and 37 of Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 of not.  Impugned order dated 30.3.2007 does not reflect that any exercise has been undertaken and merely  it has been mentioned that on the strength of the order dated 3.3.2003 directives were issued for ensuring joining of Sri Daya Shankar Pandey and for payment of salary, and thereafter Sri Daya Shankar Pandey has joined and  has attained the sage of superannuation on 31.8.2005. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar has proceeded to mention that appointment of petitioner has been made on 1.9.1997 and by concealing the fact financial approval has been accorded and against one post, salary of two incumbent cannot be paid. District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar has clearly mixed up two issues, (i) first issue  to be adjudicated was  as to whether termination proceedings of Sri Daya shankar Pandey  are valid or not. (ii) and in case it is found that termination proceeding of Daya Shankar Pandey are valid, then thereafter validity of appointment of petitioner  to be examined and consequential order  to be passed  and in the event it is found that the order  of dispensation of service of Daya Shankar Pandey was bad then follow up order  to be passed. Order which has been passed on 30.3.2007 cannot be subscribed  by any means.

Consequently, order dated 30.3.2007 is set aside. Both the parties have also agreed that the order be quashed and  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar be directed to decide the matter afresh.  In these circumstances,  District Inspector of Schools,  Kushinagar is directed to hear Ali Ahmad , Sri Daya Shankar Pandey, Manager and Principal of the institution and thereafter pass fresh order  within next ten weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With these observations is allowed.

Dt. 21.4.2007

T.S.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.