# C/M Roop Kishor Chaturvedi Inter College v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 116
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8716 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-roop-kishor-chaturvedi-inter-college-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54519
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Resolution
recommended
payment of selection grade pay to opposite
party no.4 and order declining to approve the
suspension and termination of opposite party
no.4 from post of Principal-impugned-F.I.R.
lodged against the opposite party no.4 by a
teacher of the college alleging rape and
cheating-disciplinary
enquiry
held-allegations
could not be substantiated-the copies of the
enquiry report and other related documents not
provided to the opposite party no.4-recorded in
the impugned order-Final report is filed in the
said F.I.R.-order passed by the committee goes
on to held the informant of the F.I.R. and the
police personnel guilty of having acted in
connivance of the opposite party -without
jurisdiction-Managing committee has examined
all the documents and passed resolution for
payment of selection grade pay to opposite
party on completing 10 years' service-no
illegality in the impugned order.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(टैबुलेशन रस्िथटर) साक्ष्य के रूप में पढा र्या
है, ककन्द्र्ु इसकी प्रनर् याचिकाकर्ाा को नहीिं प्रदान
की र्यी।

10. र्द्नुसार आलोच्य आदेश प्राकृनर्क
न्द्याय के ससद्िािंर्ों का पालन करर्े हुए नहीिं
पाररर् ककये र्ये हैं, इस कारण से ननरथर् ककये
िाने योग्य है।

11. उक्र् समीक्षा के आलोक में यह ररट
याचिका थिीकार की िार्ी है।

12. प्रकरण में विपक्षीर्ण को विचि
अनुसार उचिर् प्रकक्रया अपनाकर याचिकाकर्ाा
के सेिा के सिंबिंि में एक निीन आदेश पाररर्
करने की छूट रहेर्ी।
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 116
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 8716 of 2024

C/M Roop Kishor Chaturvedi Inter College
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kushmondeya Shahi, Pankaj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Service
Law
-
Resolution
recommended
payment of selection grade pay to opposite
party no.4 and order declining to approve the
suspension and termination of opposite party
no.4 from post of Principal-impugned-F.I.R.
lodged against the opposite party no.4 by a
teacher of the college alleging rape and
cheating-disciplinary
enquiry
held-allegations
could not be substantiated-the copies of the
enquiry report and other related documents not
provided to the opposite party no.4-recorded in
the impugned order-Final report is filed in the
said F.I.R.-order passed by the committee goes
on to held the informant of the F.I.R. and the
police personnel guilty of having acted in
connivance of the opposite party -without
jurisdiction-Managing committee has examined
all the documents and passed resolution for
payment of selection grade pay to opposite
party on completing 10 years' service-no
illegality in the impugned order.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaya
Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State-opposite
parties no.1 to 3, Sri Yogesh Kumar
Saxena, the learned counsel for the
opposite
party
no.4-Om
Pal
Singh
Raghuvanshi and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
the
petitionerCommittee of Management, Roop Kishore
Chaturvedi Inter College has challenged the
validity of a resolution dated 18.02.2022,
passed by the Regional Level Committee
whereby it had recommended the selection
grade pay to the opposite party no.4, an
order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the
District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad
directing the Manager/Principal, Roop
Kishore Chaturvedi Inter College to sign
the requisite documents for payment of
selection grade pay to the opposite party
no.4 in furtherance of the aforesaid
resolution dated 18.02.2022 and an order
7 All. C/M Roop Kishor Chaturvedi Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
117
dated 24.04.2024, passed by the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Farrukhabad
declining to approve the suspension and
termination of opposite party no.4 from the
post of Principal, Roop Kishore Chaturvedi
Inter College.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that an F.I.R.
No.45 of 2022, under Sections 420, 376-B,
323, 506, 323, 120-B I.P.C. was lodged
against the opposite party no.4 in Police
Station Kampil, District Fatehgarh by a
teacher of the college stating that under an
allurement of getting her some benefit the
opposite party no.4 had raped and cheated
her and that when she got pregnant the
opposite party no.4 got her pregnancy
aborted and he threatened her.

4. After lodging of the F.I.R. the
opposite party no.4 was placed under
suspension by means of an order dated
06.04.2022 on the ground of registration of
the aforesaid first information report stating
that the act alleged in the F.I.R. has
tarnished the reputation of the college. It
was also alleged in the suspension order
that the opposite party no.4 was guilty of
embezzlement of students' funds and
amount of mid-day-meal. The suspension
of the opposite party no.4 was approved by
means of an order dated 20.04.2020, passed
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Farrukhabad. On 08.07.2022 the Manager
of the College has sent a letter to the
District Inspector of Schools stating that
the opposite party no.4 was placed under
suspension on 22.03.2022 and thereafter an
enquiry committee has submitted a report
dated 03.06.2022 holding the opposite
party no.4 guilty of the charges and the
Committee of Management has terminated
the services of the opposite party no.4 on
the post of Principal of the College.
5. On 25.07.2022 the District
Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the
Manager of the College stating that in view
of the order dated 12.07.2022, passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad,
whereby the court has accepted the final
report submitted by the Investigating
Officer, approval to suspension of the
opposite party no.4 was cancelled.

6. The petitioner filed Writ-A
No.12814
of
2022
challenging
the
aforesaid order dated 25.07.2022, passed
by the DIOS, Farrukhabad which was
disposed of by means of an order dated
31.08.2022, passed by a coordinate Bench
of this court providing that a three member
committee appointed by the petitioner may
issue a fresh notice to the opposite party
no.5 containing list of witnesses and other
evidence and the enquiry should be
conducted and concluded within a period of
three months.

7. Thereafter, the Manager of the
College wrote a letter dated 30.11.2022 to
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Farrukhabad stating that the opposite party
no.4 had appeared before the Enquiry
Committee but he did not cooperate with
the Committee and did not submit his
version but subsequently he submitted his
written explanation and evidence on
16.10.2022. The Committee gave further
opportunity to the opposite party no.4 to
submit evidence in support of his claim.
The other concerned persons had also been
called to adduce their evidence, after which
the Enquiry Committee found that the
opposite party no.4 is guilty of having
committed an offence of rape regarding
which the victim had lodged an F.I.R. but
the opposite party no.4 has managed to get
a final report filed in connivance with the
informant and with the police authorities.
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Committee of Management of the
institution has decided to terminate the
services of the opposite party no.4 from the
post of Principal.

8. The opposite party no.4
challenged the aforesaid order by filing
Writ-A No.1703 of 2023, which was
disposed of by means of an order dated
21.03.2023, whereby the aforesaid order
was quashed and the opposite party no.4
was directed to be reinstated and the
management was granted liberty to proceed
in accordance with the law afresh, from the
stage of enquiry report. The petitioner
challenged the aforesaid order passed by
the Hon'ble Single Judge Bench by filing
Special Appeal No.242 of 2023 in which an
interim order was passed staying the
operation of the judgment and order dated
21.03.2023, passed by the writ court. The
said appeal is still pending.

9. Meanwhile, the opposite party
no.4 filed Writ-A No.4424 of 2024, in
which an order dated 18.04.2024 was
passed directing the District Inspector of
Schools to file his own affidavit indicating
why he has not taken a decision in the
matter of approval of the petitioner's
termination. The District Inspector of
Schools issued notices dated 22.04.2024 to
the petitioner and the opposite party no.4
and thereafter he has passed the impugned
order dated 24.04.2024 refusing to accord
approval to the termination of service of the
opposite party no.4 on the ground that the
only charge against the opposite party no.4
was lodging of an F.I.R., the allegation
levelled in which could not be established
during investigation and the Investigating
Officer has submitted a final report which
has been accepted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate.

10. Although, the suspension order
contained
two
other
charges
of
embezzlement of students' funds and
money of mid-day-meal, the charge-sheet
issued to the opposite party no.4 did not
contain any such charge and the only
allegation against the petitioner on which
the enquiry was held, was based regarding
lodging of the F.I.R. against him, the
allegations levelled in which could not be
substantiated.

11. It is further recorded in the
impugned order that the petitioner did not
comply with the direction issued by this
court in the order dated 31.08.2022 for
proving the list of witnesses and other
evidences to the opposite party no.4. Even
as
per
the
provisions
contained
in
Regulation 37 of Chapter 3 of the
Regulations
framed
under
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, it is mandatory
for the Management to provide copies of
the enquiry report and all the other related
documents to the delinquent employee,
which has not been done in the present
case.

12. In the order dated 30.11.2022,
merely this much has been stated that the
petitioner failed to adduce any evidence
to prove his innocence, but this order
does not make a reference to any evidence
led to prove the charges. It is settled law
that where the employer levels charges of
commission of any misconduct against any
employee, it is the employer who has to
adduce evidence in support of the charges
to prove that the employee is guilty of the
charges. Without the charges having been
established by producing any evidence, the
employee cannot be called upon to adduce
evidence to prove himself innocent and in
any case he cannot be held guilty merely
7 All. C/M Roop Kishor Chaturvedi Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
119
because he could not adduce evidence to
prove his innocence.

13. The order dated 13.11.2022
holds the petitioner guilty of commission of
offence of rape regarding which although
an F.I.R. had been lodged, but the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. could not
be established during investigation and the
Investigating Officer submitted a final
report, which has been accepted by the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Farrukhabad. The order dated 13.11.2022,
besides holding the opposite party no.4
guilty, goes on to held the informant of the
F.I.R. as also the concerned police
personnel guilty of having acted in
connivance with the opposite party no.4,
which findings apparently are without any
evidence,
besides
being
without
jurisdiction.

14. In these circumstances, the
District Inspector of Schools has not
committed any illegality in passing the
impugned
order
declining
to
accord
approval to the termination of opposite
party no.4 as the charges levelled against
the opposite party no.4 in the F.I.R. could
not be established during investigation and
the
final
report
submitted
by
the
Investigating Officer has been accepted by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

15. So far as the challenge laid by
the petitioner to the resolution dated
18.02.2022, passed by the Regional Level
Committee for grant of selection grade
pay to the opposite party no.4 and the
consequential order dated 13.02.2024,
passed by the District Inspector of Schools,
Farrukhabad, directing the petitioner to
submit documents for payment of selection
grade to the opposite party no.4 in
furtherance
of
the
resolution
dated
18.02.2022, the aforesaid resolution states
that the District Inspector of Schools had
submitted a recommendation for payment
of selection grade pay to the opposite party
no.4 on 15.12.2021. The Committee had
examined all the documents and found that
the opposite party no.4 was working as
Principal of the College since 28.06.2010
and he has completed the eligibility
condition of having completed ten years'
service on 28.06.2020. A resolution passed
by the Managing Committee of the college
on 06.12.2020 was also a part of the
documents
submitted,
whereby
the
Managing Committee had unanimously
resolved for payment of selection grade pay
to the opposite party no.4 as he had
completed ten years service.

16. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the Committee
of Management has not submitted any
other resolution. When a three member
regional committee headed by the Director
of Education has recorded a factual
statement that the documents submitted to
the three members committee included a
resolution dated 06.12.2020, passed by the
Committee of Management, this court does
not find it proper to go into this disputed
question of fact being raised by the
petitioner that it had not submitted any such
resolution.

17. The learned counsel for the
petitioner next submitted that even as per
the averment made in the impugned order
the Committee of Management had merely
recommended grant of selection grade pay
to the opposite party no.4 on the ground
that he had completed ten years service but
it does not state that the petitioner had
completed ten years satisfactory service,
which is an essential condition of grant of
selection grade pay to a teacher.
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. When the Committee of
Management itself recommended payment
of selection grade pay to the opposite party
no.4 stating that he had complete ten years
service and was entitled to be granted
selection grade pay, the mere fact that the
resolution dated 18.02.2022 does not state
that it was written in the resolution that the
opposite party no.4 had completed ten
years 'satisfactory' service would not affect
the legality of the resolution for payment of
selection grade pay to the petitioner passed
by the regional level committee when the
Committee of Management of the college
had
itself
recommended
payment
of
selection grade pay to the opposite party
no.4, which implies that the Committee of
Management of the college was satisfied
with the services of the opposite party no.4.

19. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, this court does not find any
illegality in the impugned resolution dated
18.02.2022, passed by the regional level
committee recommending payment of
selection grade pay to the opposite party
no.4 and the consequential communication
dated 13.02.2024 issued by the District
Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad.

20. The writ petition lacks merit
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 9427 of 2023

Anuradha Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Niraj Kumar Srivastava, Neelima Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, Volume
-2, Part 2 to 4-Petitioner suffering from
physical and mental ailment severely-not
able to discharge her duties-requested for
voluntary retirement after completing 30
years of service-aged about 55 years-her
request
rejected-impugned-though
competent authority have jurisdiction to
turn down such application-if reason valid-it
should not be interfered in the routine
manner-as
per
specific
opinion
of
Orthopedic
surgeon-her
life
may
be
endangered -her fundamental right to life
and personal liberty may not be violated -
reason indicated in impugned order suffers
from perversity-quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Manjushree
Pathak
Vs
Assam
Industrial
Development Corpn. Ltd. & ors., (2000) 7 SCC
390

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathaur, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

2. In the present case, pleadings are
complete, therefore, learned counsels for the
parties have requested that the matter may be
heard and disposed of finally.

3. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has prayed following main
reliefs:-