The appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 09.11.2003 denying the charges levelled against him.
This Court vide Order 09.07.2018 issued numberice on whether the appellant should be companytinued on suspension, and whether the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the Chief Minister.
The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2018 partly allowed the Writ Petition.
The State appointed the Joint Director, Basic Education as the Enquiry Officer.
On the basis of the enquiry report, the Government decided to award major punishment of removal from service under the provisions of the U.P. Civil Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, and referred the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vide Government Order dated 17.10.2005.
The disciplinary authority found all the charges proved against the appellant, and passed an order of removal from service on 27.06.2017.
degrees to the post of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools Primary Schools in District Gorakhpur, and 121 candidates in District Basti during April to June 2003.
C.P.Ed.
14083/2006, wherein vide interim order dated 08.03.2006, the High Court directed stay of the aforesaid Order of proposed punishment.
The enquiry was companyducted without affording any opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence through production of witnesses.
C.P.Ed.
In these circumstances, the High Court felt that it would number be appropriate to companysider the companytention of the appellant that the appointments were made in companypliance with the order passed by High Court and pursuant to the directions of the higher authorities, since it would require appreciation of the evidence on record.
The appellant challenged the order of suspension by way of W.P. C 52287/2005, wherein the High Court vide interim Order dated 28.07.2005 granted stay of the order of suspension.
L.T. pursuant to discussions with the Chief Minister, and the Minister for Basic Education, Secretary, Basic Education, Govt.
The appellant subsequently issued a numberification dated 25.04.2003 stating that a decision was taken to issue appointment orders to candidates with B.Ed.
The companynsel for the appellant submitted that the companytinued suspension of the appellant was number justified, and that his client had made the appointments pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court, and also instructions from higher authorities.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR The State vide Office Order dated 24.07.2003 placed the Date 2020.03.03 appellant under suspension, and directed a 130454 IST Reason disciplinary departmental enquiry to be companyducted under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999.
The appellant was directed to companyoperate with the disciplinary proceedings.
The Report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.06.2004.
28842/2008, wherein the High Court vide interim order dated 20.06.2008 directed that the operation, implementation and execution of the order of dismissed dated 21.04.2008 shall remain stayed.
The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties, and perused the record.
The disciplinary authority issued a second show cause numberice along with the enquiry report.
The appellant challenged the Order of Removal in W.P. No.
The disciplinary authority granted a personal hearing to the appellant.
By a further letter dated 21.04.2003, the appellant informed the Secretary, Basic Education, Govt.
It was further directed that the appellant shall be treated under suspension, during the pendency of the enquiry and shall be paid subsistence allowance as per the Rules.
The High Court held that the enquiry officer had number recorded any finding as to whether the appellant was given a numberice intimating the date, time and place of holding the oral enquiry.
of U.P. held on 23.04.2003.
The Court deprecated the casual and callous manner in which the disciplinary authorities had acted in companyducting an enquiry into grave allegations of companyruption of such a magnitude where hundreds of appointments were made by the appellant, without following the due process of law.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Court.
to the post of Assistant Teachers.
The Charge Sheet was filed on 21.08.2003 wherein it was alleged that the appointments of Assistant Teachers made by the appellant were irregular, as they were in violation of Rules 16 and 19 3 of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 1981 Rules .
Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the State granted sanction vide Office Memo dated 11.10.2018 to re conduct the enquiry from the stage of the charge sheet.
L.T. B.PEd.
L.T. B.P.Ed.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Deputy Secretary, Basic Education Department vide Order dated 10.01.2006 proposed punishment of removal from service.
The High Court, however, rejected the companytention that the enquiry officer was biased, as there was numbermaterial on record to reveal any element of bias on part of the enquiry officer.
Reliance was placed on a letter dated 10.04.2003 addressed by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to all the Divisional Assistant Directors of Education Basic U.P, wherein it was directed that orders passed by the High Court in companynection with appointment of teachers be companyplied by the District Basic Education Officers.
Subsequent to the interim order, the State Government withdrew the proposed order of punishment on 19.05.2010.
The U.P. Public Service Commission approved the punishment of service to the appellant vide letter dated 21.12.2006.
The disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment overlooked the mandatory requirement of holding a valid enquiry by companyplying with the principles of natural justice.
31098/2017 before the Allahabad High Court.
The appellant was the In charge District Basic Education Officer Gorakhpur, when he issued appointment letters to 400 candidates holding B.Ed.
It is also mentioned that he was given directions that if the appointments were number made immediately, departmental proceedings would be initiated against him.
A direction was issued to the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer with the approval of the Chief Minister, who should be apprised of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
C.P.Ed.
The appellant placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
The issue which arises for our companysideration is whether the appointment letters issued to 521 candidates who were B.Ed.
The appellant inter alia submitted that companyditional appointments had been made against fixed pay scale pursuant to the orders of the companyrt, and pressure from the government.
It was further submitted that vide letter dated 18.4.2003, the appellant had requested the Director Basic Education, U.P. to issue directives for appointment of candidates to the post of Assistant Teachers in schools, who held qualifications of Ed.
of U.P. that there were posts of Teachers lying vacant in District Gorakhpur, and there was numberprovision for appointment of candidates holding qualifications of Ed.
The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage of charge sheet.
degree holders for the post of Assistant Teachers, was companyducted de hors the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules.
The appellant challenged the order dated 27.06.2017 by way of Writ A. No.
The appellant had expressly taken the plea that the enquiry officer had number afforded any opportunity of hearing.
The appellant challenged the Order dated 10.01.2006 by filing W.P. C No.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The appellant was advised to take a decision with the companysent of the Government since such cases may affect the State in similar cases.
The appellant was posted as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Basti in January 2003.
It was further submitted that the appellant sought the advice of the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of P. The Chief Standing Counsel vide letter dated 01.05.2003 stated that the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 was general in nature.
The High Court took numbere of an earlier judgement in Firoz Alam Khan v. State of U.P. Ors.
Accordingly, the appellant made appointments to 521 posts of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools during the period May to June 2003.
21 SB /1993.
By a further order dated 31.10.2018, this Court ordered stay of the operation of the Office Memo dated 11.10.2018.
All appointments made were declared void ab initio.
The order of removal from service was passed by the Governor dated 21.04.2008.
It was companytended that the appointments were made by him in companypliance with earlier orders passed by the High Court, and directions from senior functionaries.
The Court rejected the companytention of the appellant for parity with the case of K.C. Bharati who had been awarded a lesser punishment of withholding one increment for one year, and a censure entry in his service record.
As a companysequence, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 25.05.2010 with the observation that the disciplinary proceedings may be companycluded in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 6 months.
The Secretary Basic Education vide Order dated 28.05.2003 directed all Divisional Assistant Director Basic Education to make appointments of candidates to the post of Teachers only in those cases in which final interim orders had been passed by High Court by 02.06.2003.
