# Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 574
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4813 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-sonal-sachadev-aurora-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48217
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - Right of
resignation - Grant of Child care leave,
extension thereof prayed for - After
refusal, the petitioner, being mother
resigned from her post of Lecturer -
Preliminary inquiry with regard to absence
from duty initiated and charge-sheet was
issued - Termination order from service
was passed without fixing any date, time
and place in the inquiry and in fact
without conducting any type of inquiry
and without taking any decision upon
resignation of the petitioner - Validity
challenged - Held, the petitioner had a
right to resign - She is treated arbitrarily
by the respondents. The respondents were
bound
to
accept
the
resignation
of
petitioner and, there was no necessity to
conduct any inquiry against the petitioner.
Even otherwise the inquiry conducted
without fixing any date, time, and place
and evidence itself is vitiated. (Para 3 and
6)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not appear to have properly appreciated the
evidence nor recorded reasons in support of
his conclusion. To add insult to injury the
Appellate Authority instead of recording its
own
reasons
and
independently
appreciating the material on record, simply
reproduced the findings of the Disciplinary
Authority. All told, the Enquiry Officer, the
Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority have faltered in the discharge of
their duties resulting in miscarriage of
justice. The High Court was in that view
right in interfering with the orders passed
by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority.

8. There is no quarrel with the
proposition that in cases where the High
Court finds the enquiry to be deficient,
either procedurally or otherwise, the
proper course always is to remand the
matter back to the concerned authority to
redo the same afresh. That course could
have been followed even in the present
case. The matter could be remanded back
to the Disciplinary Authority or to the
Enquiry Officer for a proper enquiry and a
fresh report and order. But that course may
not have been the only course open in a
given situation. There may be situations
where because of a long time-lag or such
other supervening circumstances the writ
court
considers
it
unfair,
harsh
or
otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh
enquiry or fresh order by the competent
authority. That is precisely what the High
Court has done in the case at hand.

10. The next question is whether
the respondent would be entitled to claim
arrears of salary as part of service/retiral
benefits in full or part. The High Court has
been rather ambivalent in that regard. We
say so because while the High Court has
directed release of service/retiral benefits,
it is not clear whether the same would
include salary for the period between the
date
of
removal
and
the
date
of
superannuation. Taking a liberal view of
the matter, we assume that the High
Court's direction for release of service
benefits would include the release of his
salaries also for the period mentioned
above. We are, however, of the opinion that
while proceedings need not be remanded
for a fresh start from the beginning, grant
of full salary for the period between the
date of dismissal and the date of
superannuation
would
not
also
be
justified."

35. In the facts of the present case,
this Court also finds that as the petitioner is
out of employment for about nine years and
the disciplinary proceedings were not as
per law, therefore, it would be in the
interest of justice that the petitioner be
reinstated in service with 50% back wages
and all consequential benefits.

36. The writ petition is allowed with
no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)03ILR A574
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 4813 of 2021

Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hari Prasad Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
3 All. Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Termination - Right of
resignation - Grant of Child care leave,
extension thereof prayed for - After
refusal, the petitioner, being mother
resigned from her post of Lecturer -
Preliminary inquiry with regard to absence
from duty initiated and charge-sheet was
issued - Termination order from service
was passed without fixing any date, time
and place in the inquiry and in fact
without conducting any type of inquiry
and without taking any decision upon
resignation of the petitioner - Validity
challenged - Held, the petitioner had a
right to resign - She is treated arbitrarily
by the respondents. The respondents were
bound
to
accept
the
resignation
of
petitioner and, there was no necessity to
conduct any inquiry against the petitioner.
Even otherwise the inquiry conducted
without fixing any date, time, and place
and evidence itself is vitiated. (Para 3 and
6)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. Despite the best efforts of all still,
how a working woman can be harassed
even in this era is reflected in the facts of
the present case. Petitioner, a doctor by
qualification, after getting selected by U.P.
Public Service Commission, in furtherance
of appointment letter dated 21.12.2011,
joined as lecturer at the Baba Saheb Bheem
Rao Ambedkar Medical College and Allied
Hospital, Kannauj on 06.01.2012. On being
blessed with a child, she took child care
leave from 23.01.2016 to 20.07.2016 i.e.
for a period of 180 days. The same was
sanctioned by the principal of the medical
college on 25.02.2016. After the child care
leave, petitioner intended to join but due to
illness of the child was unable to resume
her duties. On 19.07.2016 she again
requested for extension of child care leave
for another period of six months. The
principal of the medical college by
communication dated 02.08.2016 informed
the petitioner that child care leave cannot
be sanctioned for more than 180 days and
required the petitioner to join within two
days. Petitioner by her communication
dated 22.08.2016 again requested for grant
of leave. The principal did not agree to the
request and by letter dated 05.09.2016 and
22.10.2016 required the petitioner to join
her duties. She could not join due to her
given circumstances and necessity to lookafter the child. On 08.11.2016 she again
wrote a letter requesting for grant of any
type of leave as the child, due to certain
circumstances, was requiring constant care.
The
principal
by
his
letter
dated
12.11.2016, looking into the circumstances
of the petitioner, informed the petitioner
that only leave without pay can be
sanctioned to her. Therefore, petitioner by
her letter dated 05.12.2016 requested for
grant of leave without pay for the period of
absence from duty. Since petitioner was
unable to join as the child was still
requiring continuous care, she resigned by
letter dated 01.05.2018. Till the date of
resignation,
neither
any
departmental
proceeding against the petitioner were
initiated nor she was punished by any
order. The resignation was sent both, to the
principal of the college as well as to the
Director General Medical Education and
Training, U.P., Lucknow. On 29.05.2018,
the principal of the medical college also
recommended
the
resignation
to
the
Director
General.
By
letter
dated
24.05.2018 the government sought details
upon the resignation of the petitioner from
the Director General. The principal of the
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
college replied the same and recommended
that in the given circumstances resignation
of the petitioner should be accepted. He
also informed that no dues of the
department are pending against petitioner
and as per the record of his office no
departmental inquiry is pending against
her. As no reply to the resignation of
petitioner was given, hence, on 25.02.2019,
petitioner again wrote a letter to the
principal for grant of leave without pay.
Surprisingly, in February, 2019, an inquiry
officer
was
nominated
to
hold
a
preliminary inquiry with regard to absence
from duty of the petitioner. Petitioner
submitted her reply to the letter written to
her in the said preliminary inquiry. On
14.11.2019, a charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner. Petitioner submitted her
reply to the charge-sheet and on 07.02.2020
again requested for acceptance of her
resignation
letter.
Thereafter,
without
fixing any date, time and place in the
inquiry and in fact without conducting any
type of inquiry and without taking any
decision upon resignation of the petitioner,
the State Government passed order dated
06.01.2021 terminating the petitioner from
services. Hence, petitioner has approached
this Court challenging the same.

3. The facts of the case clearly indicates
that petitioner, a mother was facing difficulty
in handling both, a child in need of care as
well as her job with the State Government. In
the given circumstances, initially she applied
for leave as may be granted to her under the
service rules and finding that the same is not
possible she even resigned on 01.05.2018.
The resignation was kept pending for as good
as two years and a termination order is passed
on 06.01.2021 only. Besides the entire
inquiry on the face of it is illegal inasmuch as
no date, time and place was fixed in the
inquiry and no evidence was submitted to
prove charge, the very conduct of the
respondents is arbitrary and denies a fair play
to a working woman. Any working woman,
more particularly, a mother is required to be
accommodated as far as possible. Presuming
the worst, it was not possible for the
department to grant any further leave to the
petitioner, including leave without pay,
suffice would have been in the given
circumstances to accept the resignation of the
petitioner. This Court fails to understand as to
what purpose is achieved by the respondents
by keeping the petitioner in service from
01.05.2018 i.e. from the date of resignation
till 06.01.2021 i.e. the date on which she was
terminated. During the said period, they
could not appoint any other person in place of
petitioner, therefore, work of the college
continued to suffer and the public at large
was in no manner benefited. The entire issue
could have been best served by accepting her
resignation. The petitioner had a right to
resign on 01.05.2018 and her resignation had
to be accepted as till that date neither any
departmental inquiry was initiated against her
nor there was any other reason available to
the respondents for not accepting the
resignation. Even her immediate superior
administrative authority, i.e., the principal of
the college, had recommended for acceptance
of her resignation without any objection.

4. The Supreme Court in case of
"State of A.P. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao",
reported in [1975 (2) SCC 557] has detailed
the power of court while considering
challenge to a departmental proceedings.
Relevant portion of paragraph-21 of the
said judgment reads:-

"21....................The
Court
is
concerned
to
determine
whether
the
enquiry is held by an authority competent
in that behalf and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf, and
3 All. Kuldeep Kumar Saxena & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
577
whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated. Second, where there is some
evidence which the authority entrusted with
the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the
function of the High Court to review the
evidence and to arrive at an independent
finding on the evidence. The High Court
may interfere where the departmental
authorities have held the proceedings
against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where
the authorities have disabled themselves
from reaching a fair decision by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence
and the merits of the case or by allowing
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations or where the conclusion on
the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person
could
ever
have
arrived
at
that
conclusion............................."
 (emphasis added)

5. Learned Standing Counsel also
could not place any reason for not
accepting the resignation of the petitioner.

6. Therefore, the petitioner in the
given facts and circumstances is treated
arbitrarily
by
the
respondents.
The
respondents were bound to accept the
resignation of petitioner and, there was no
necessity to conduct any inquiry against the
petitioner. Even otherwise the inquiry
conducted without fixing any date, time,
and place and evidence itself is vitiated.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the
termination order dated 06.01.2021 is
quashed. The respondents shall treat the
petitioner as having resigned from her post
w.e.f. 01.05.2018 and shall grant her
benefit which she is entitled to by treating
her to be in service till 01.05.2018. Such an
exercise shall be conducted expeditiously,
say in not more than two months from the
date a copy of this order is placed before
respondent
no.2
Director,
Medical
Education & Training, 6th Floor, Jawahar
Bhawan, Lucknow.

8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition
is allowed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ A No. 9673 of 2021
connected with other cases

Kuldeep Kumar Saxena & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amardeo Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri
Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Durga Singh, Sri Piyush
Mishra, Sri Shashi Nandan

A. Constitution of India - Article 21-A -
Right
of
Education
-
Scope
-
Establishment of Kasturba Gandhi Balika
Vidyalaya - Object - Education for a
vulnerable class of marginalized children -
Held, right to education means right to
quality education and it can be provided
by qualified teachers only - Establishment
of KGBV is thus a forward step taken by
the State to secure the high objective of