While dismissing the appeal, we would like to observe that the
government authorities must be quite sensitive while imposing
the severe punishment of dismissal as a consequence to
disciplinary action.
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 898 of 2020
Board Of Basic Education Vs Arvind Prakash Dwivedi And 2 Others
CORAM:
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment
dated 25th August, 2020 passed by learned single Bench in
Writ-A No.5210 of 2020.
Succinctly, facts of the case are that the respondent-petitioner
entered in service of the appellant-respondent being appointed
as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 4th January, 2006. While
in service he was also promoted to the post of Head Master of a
Junior High School. The petitioner was placed under suspension
by an order dated 7th December, 2019 and was subjected to
disciplinary action under a chargesheet dated 13th January,
2020. In the chargesheet aforesaid, it was alleged that in the
year 1984 the delinquent employee appeared in an examination
of Purva Madhyama held by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and in the same year he also
obtained high school certificate from U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education. After holding an inquiry, by
an order dated 11th June, 2020 the Basic Education Officer
imposed a penalty of dismissal upon the respondent-petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, a petition for writ was filed that came
to be accepted under the judgment impugned.
Learned single Bench while accepting the petition for writ
relied upon the law laid down by Supreme Court in Kuldeep
Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2016)
3 SCC 521. In the case aforesaid, the Supreme Court held as
under:-
"7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned Senior
Counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been
influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous
appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was
"contrary to the Regulations". However, no such Regulation has been
mentioned either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.
Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the
respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the
respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such
Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976
framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations.
Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned judgment of the High
Court is erroneous.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant's intermediate examination
and result thereof was not in question before the U.P. Board. No illegality
in the admission in that class has been pointed out by the respondents. The
alleged charge of simultaneously appearing in two examinations, one of
the U.P. Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect to Class
X and equivalent examination which did not relate to admission in
intermediate course. The only provision for cancelling the said admission
is contained in Regulation 1 of Chapter VI-B. It details the procedure for
passing the order of punishment cancelling intermediate results and, inter
alia, prescribes that a committee consisting of three different members is
to be constituted and entrusted with the responsibility of looking into and
disposing of cases relating to unfair means and award appropriate penalty
as specified in the Regulations itself. However, there is no allegation of
any unfair means adopted by the appellant in the instant case and,
therefore, that Regulation has no applicability. Even otherwise, no such
committee was constituted. Therefore, having taken admission in
intermediate on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board,
which was recognised, and not on the basis of the result of Class X of the
U.P. Board, the appellant derived no advantage from his examination of
the U.P. Board while seeking admission in intermediate course. Thus, from
any angle the matter is to be looked into, the impugned orders dated 20-4-
2011 and 10-5-2011 passed by the respondents are null and void, apart
from the fact that they are in violation of the principles of natural justice."
Learned single Bench also held that before imposing the severe
punishment, no opportunity of hearing was given to the
respondent-petitioner and that is in flagrant violation of
principles of natural justice.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of appellant-respondent is that the respondentpetitioner
could have not availed benefit of two educational
certificates while he obtained higher education on basis of one
specific certificate of high school issued by U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the respondentpetitioner
could have obtained two qualification simultaneously
and the respondent-petitioner as such possessed requisite
qualification to hold the post of Assistant Teacher as well as the
further promotional post.
Learned single Bench in view of it, has not committed any error
that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
While dismissing the appeal, we would like to observe that the
government authorities must be quite sensitive while imposing
the severe punishment of dismissal as a consequence to
disciplinary action. It is strange that in the instant matter the
authority competent despite knowing the fact that the
respondent-petitioner is having requisite qualification to hold
the post chose to impose the penalty of dismissal.
With the observations as above, the appeal stands dismissed
accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020
Bhaskar
(Siddhartha Varma, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment