Court No. - 16 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2473 of 2016
Petitioner :- Susheel Krishan Namdev
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel are present, but none appears for the District Basic Education Officer, Banda. Despite an order passed by this Court on 11.12.2017, the respondents have not filed any parawise reply to the writ petition. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 8.1.2016, whereby the services of petitioner have been dismissed on a charge that petitioner has manipulated records and has manipulated the signatures of Principal etc. As per the order, petitioner was undergoing probation as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School. The order is essentially challenged on the ground that though the order of dismissal has been passed on specific charge, but no enquiry in the manner contemplated under the Rules of 1999 have been conducted. It is submitted that merely by issuing a show cause notice, the services of petitioner have been dismissed, which was wholly impermissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the authority was not satisfied with the explanation of petitioner in the matter, at best the disciplinary proceedings in the manner contemplated in law ought to have been initiated, and the order of dismissal passed straightaway by the authority is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
Despite grant of opportunity, no parawise reply has been filed to the writ petition. The averments made in para 24 to 30 stating that no enquiry was conducted in the matter has not been disputed. The further contention made in para 28 that the petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity to defend himself by adducing evidence etc. also remains unrebutted, and accordingly liable to be accepted following the doctrine of non- traverse. Although the petitioner is shown to be on probation, and the authorities were within their right to have examined his suitability for the purposes of confirmation but where a specific order of dismissal has been passed, levelling serious allegations against the petitioner, the minimum requirement in law is that Neutral Citation No. - 2018:AHC:8305
1
an appropriate enquiry into the allegations are made and petitioner is provided opportunity in terms of procedure laid down to defend himself. Since this has not been done, as such the order impugned cannot be sustained.
Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 8.1.2016 is quashed. It shall, however, be open for the authorities to proceed afresh against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.1.2018 Anil
2