# Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 74
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15765 of 2014
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53632
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
K.R. Singh, Krishna Ji Khare, Sanjay
Srivastava, Vimal Chandra Mishra

Issue for Consideration
The issue for adjudication in the connected writ
petitions is the legality and sustainability of the
petitioners' termination from service as Class-IV
employees
at
Vikramaditya
Inter
College,Sikandara,
Prayagraj,
pursuant
to
disciplinary proceedings initiated on allegations
of misconduct,including theft, forgery, breach of
trust, and conspiracy in misappropriating and
utilizing institutional documents.

Headnotes
Service law-Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act,1921
a)
Relief
in
Writ-A
No.15765/2014Allowed-removal
quashed-immediate
reinstatement as Class-IV employee with
full
back
wages
and
consequential
benefits-arrears
payable
within
three
months-current salary forthwith.
b) Relief in Writ A No. 51031/2015Allowed
partly-removal
and
appellate
order quashed-immediate reinstatementBack
wages,
50%
arrears
pending
outcome-Management may pursue fresh
inquiry on Charges 1 & 2(forgery)-no
inquiry on charges 3&4(theft/conspiracy).
c) Relief in Writ A No. 20351/2022-Detagged-listed for hearing after three
months before appropriate bench.

Held
The impugned order dated 01.02.2014 passed
by the Principal of Vikramaditya Inter College,
Sikandara Prayagraj removing the petitioner
from service, is quashed-The Manager and
Principal to ensure the immediate reinstatement
of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee with all
consequential
benefits
of
seniority
and
emoluments-The
impugned
order
dated
07.10.2013 passed by the Principal terminating
the petitioner's service and the appellate order
dated 19.07.2015 passed by the Committee of
Management
dismissing
the
appeal,
are
quashed-The petitioner shall be reinstated
forthwith as a Class-IV employee, ensured by
the DIOS, Manager and Principal without delay
and paid current salary from the date of
reinstatment-If fresh proceedings are pursued,
arrears of emoluments shall be subject to their
outcome-if not elected, the petitioner is entitled
to 50% of arrears for the period
out
service.(Para 61 to 64) (E-6)

Case law cited
St. of U.P. & Ors Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2
SCC 772,Roop Singh Negi Vs PNB & Ors, (2009)
2 SCC 570, St. of U.K. & Ors Vs Kharak Singh
(2008) 8 SCC 236 , St. of U.P. & Anr Vs Kishori
Lal & Anr (2018) 9 ADJ 397 (DB) (LB),
Smt.Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 9 ADJ
107 (DB) (LB), St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad
Srivastava & Anr (2017) 2 ADJ 554 (DB)(LB),
Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Anr (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 3325-referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,1921
List of Keywords
Vikramaditya Inter College; Sikandara; Class-IV
employee; Chowkidar; Mali; Promotion; Daftari;
Assistant Clerk;Banke Bihari Singh; Disciplinary
proceedings; Termination; Charge sheet; Show
cause
notice;
suspension;
Malafide;Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate
Education
Act,1921;
DIOS; Committee of Management; Mutual
transfer; Reinstatment; Back wages; Seniority
list; Conspiracy; Breach of trust;U.P. Act No. 24
of 1971.
Case Arising From
Service Law :WRIT-A No. - 15765 of 2014
From the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for parties
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs.for Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Vikas Budhwar
Advs. for Respondent:

 K.R. Singh, Krishna Ji Khare, Sanjay Srivatava,
Vimal Chandra Mishra

## Text

_Characters 0–39,864 of 98,508. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39864 for what follows._

74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the
same is liable to be set aside being wholly
illegal."
(emphasis added)

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the record, pleadings raised in the writ
petition and the instructions placed before
the court, I find that it is because of certain
correspondence that had taken place
between the petitioner and respondent
authorities in the District that spelled off
the
controversy
leading
to
alleged
indiscipline or misconduct on the part of
the petitioner, moreso in the circumstances
when he was office bearer of the
Employees' Union. Ultimately instead of
holding talks and peacefully resolving the
issues, the authority proceeded to get rid of
the office bearer and hence passed an order
of transfer giving a reason therein that
petitioner was guilty of gross indiscipline.

10. From the observations made by
the Supreme Court as quoted above, there
can be no doubt about this legal position
that an action adverse to an employee as a
result of authority forming a view qua such
an
employee
to
have
committed
misconduct, to transfer him, would render
such an exercise of administrative power to
be vitiated for malice in law. In the present
case action to transfer taken appears to be
clearly by way of punishment as the
authorities
being
assigned
reason
of
indiscipline and for violating directives of
the higher authorities by the petitioner.

11. In the circumstances, therefore, the
order of transfer would definitely fall within the
mischief of principle of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari
and hence liable to be held unsustainable.
12. However, it is always open for
the respondent authorities to transfer an
employee in administrative exigency if they
find such an employee has become a
nuisance value but for this, only simple
transfer order should be passed transferring
an employee in administrative exigency. In
such cases, therefore, even the office
bearers of the Employees' Union would not
fall in exception clause of the transfer
policy and so they can also subjected to
transfer taking the recourse to the Clause
12 of the Transfer Policy dated 06.05.2025.

13. In the circumstances, writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

14. Order dated 13.06.2025 is
hereby quashed.

15. However, it will remain open
for the authorities to pass transfer order in
administrative exigency if it so desire in the
next session 2026-2027.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 74
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 15765 of 2014
Connected with
Writ A No. 51031 of 2015
And
Writ A No. 20351 of 2022

Jai Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Vikaas Budhwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
75
K.R. Singh, Krishna Ji Khare, Sanjay
Srivastava, Vimal Chandra Mishra

Issue for Consideration
The issue for adjudication in the connected writ
petitions is the legality and sustainability of the
petitioners' termination from service as Class-IV
employees
at
Vikramaditya
Inter
College,Sikandara,
Prayagraj,
pursuant
to
disciplinary proceedings initiated on allegations
of misconduct,including theft, forgery, breach of
trust, and conspiracy in misappropriating and
utilizing institutional documents.

Headnotes
Service law-Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act,1921
a)
Relief
in
Writ-A
No.15765/2014Allowed-removal
quashed-immediate
reinstatement as Class-IV employee with
full
back
wages
and
consequential
benefits-arrears
payable
within
three
months-current salary forthwith.
b) Relief in Writ A No. 51031/2015Allowed
partly-removal
and
appellate
order quashed-immediate reinstatementBack
wages,
50%
arrears
pending
outcome-Management may pursue fresh
inquiry on Charges 1 & 2(forgery)-no
inquiry on charges 3&4(theft/conspiracy).
c) Relief in Writ A No. 20351/2022-Detagged-listed for hearing after three
months before appropriate bench.

Held
The impugned order dated 01.02.2014 passed
by the Principal of Vikramaditya Inter College,
Sikandara Prayagraj removing the petitioner
from service, is quashed-The Manager and
Principal to ensure the immediate reinstatement
of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee with all
consequential
benefits
of
seniority
and
emoluments-The
impugned
order
dated
07.10.2013 passed by the Principal terminating
the petitioner's service and the appellate order
dated 19.07.2015 passed by the Committee of
Management
dismissing
the
appeal,
are
quashed-The petitioner shall be reinstated
forthwith as a Class-IV employee, ensured by
the DIOS, Manager and Principal without delay
and paid current salary from the date of
reinstatment-If fresh proceedings are pursued,
arrears of emoluments shall be subject to their
outcome-if not elected, the petitioner is entitled
to 50% of arrears for the period
out
service.(Para 61 to 64) (E-6)

Case law cited
St. of U.P. & Ors Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2
SCC 772,Roop Singh Negi Vs PNB & Ors, (2009)
2 SCC 570, St. of U.K. & Ors Vs Kharak Singh
(2008) 8 SCC 236 , St. of U.P. & Anr Vs Kishori
Lal & Anr (2018) 9 ADJ 397 (DB) (LB),
Smt.Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 9 ADJ
107 (DB) (LB), St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad
Srivastava & Anr (2017) 2 ADJ 554 (DB)(LB),
Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & Anr (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 3325-referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,1921
List of Keywords
Vikramaditya Inter College; Sikandara; Class-IV
employee; Chowkidar; Mali; Promotion; Daftari;
Assistant Clerk;Banke Bihari Singh; Disciplinary
proceedings; Termination; Charge sheet; Show
cause
notice;
suspension;
Malafide;Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate
Education
Act,1921;
DIOS; Committee of Management; Mutual
transfer; Reinstatment; Back wages; Seniority
list; Conspiracy; Breach of trust;U.P. Act No. 24
of 1971.
Case Arising From
Service Law :WRIT-A No. - 15765 of 2014
From the judgment and order dated 07.07.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for parties
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs.for Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, Vikas Budhwar
Advs. for Respondent:

 K.R. Singh, Krishna Ji Khare, Sanjay Srivatava,
Vimal Chandra Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will dispose of WritA No.15765 of 2014 and Writ-A No.51031
of 2015 but not Writ-A No.20351 of 2022.
Writ-A No.15765 of 2014 has been
instituted by Jai Prakash, a class IV
employee with the Vikramaditya Inter
College,
Sikandra,
Allahabad
(now
Prayagraj), which was earlier called the
Janta Inter College, Sikandra, Allahabad.
The petitioner, Jai Prakash, questions
through this writ petition the order dated
01.12.2014 passed by the Principal of the
aforesaid College, removing him from
service
after
holding
disciplinary
proceedings. Writ-A No.51031 of 2015 has
been instituted by Nanku Ram, another
Class-IV employee, a Mali, with the
Vikramaditya Inter College, Sikandra,
Allahabad (for short, 'the Institution'),
impugning the order of the Principal of the
Institution dated 07.10.2013, terminating
his service, also after holding disciplinary
proceedings. Also under challenge in this
writ petition by the petitioner is the order of
the Committee of Management of the
Institution dated 19.07.2015, dismissing his
appeal
from
the
Principal's
order,
terminating his services. Writ-A No.20351
of 2022 has been instituted by Nanku Ram
and Jai Prakash jointly, both dismissed
employees of the Institution at the time of
bringing this writ petition, seeking to quash
the
advertisement
dated
08.10.2022,
advertising for recruitment by direct
appointment one post of Assistant Clerk
with the Institution. The further relief that
the petitioners jointly seek in this writ
petition is to summon the record of
proceedings held for promotion of Janardan
Singh, respondent No.7, to the post of
Assistant Clerk and quash the order of his
promotion.

2. It must be remarked at the outset
that though all the three matters are
interconnected and involve some common
questions of fact and law, on account of
which these have been heard together, there
are distinct and different features to each of
them,
requiring
some
separate
consideration. It is also worthy of note that
Writ-A
No.20351
of
2022
can
be
determined
at
the
instance
of
the
petitioners, only if one or both of them
succeed in their individual writ petitions,
entitling them to reinstatement in service as
Class-IV employees. The reason is that
their claim for promotion to the two ClassIII posts with the Institution, to one of
which Janardan Singh, respondent No.7 in
Writ-A No.20351 of 2022 has been
promoted, and, the other, that has been
advertised for direct recruitment, would
arise if the one or both the petitioners are
reinstated in the cadre of Class-IV
employee/ employees in the Institution.

3. We propose to take up Writ-A
No.15765 of 2014 for a first. It is common
ground between parties that the Institution
is recognized under the Uttar Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for
short, 'the Act of 2021') and in receipt of a
maintenance
grant
from
the
State
Government under the U.P. Act No.24 of
1971. The Institution is managed by a
Committee of Management, headed by a
Manager. Bankey Bihari Singh is the
Manager of the Institution. The petitioner
was appointed a Class-IV employee with
the Institution vide appointment letter dated
03.01.1995. He was assigned the duties of a
Chowkidar (Watchman). The petitioner's
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
appointment was approved by the District
Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (for short,
'the DIOS') vide order dated 16.01.1995.
Ever since, he was discharging his duties as
a Class-IV employee in the Institution
regularly. The petitioner says that his
service record is unblemished and he has
always discharged duties assigned to him,
without complaint by his superiors. So long
as he was in service, he was in receipt of
regular salary and other benefits payable
from time to time, all borne on the
exchequer. The petitioner claims to hold
the certificate of intermediate earned from
the U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, an examination
that he passed in the IInd Division. He was
placed at serial No.5 in the seniority list of
Class-IV employees of the Institution.

4. It is the petitioner's further case
that employees placed at serial Nos.1, 2 and
3 of the seniority list of Class-IV
employees, are barely literate and do not
possess
the
requisite
educational
qualification for promotion to the post of
Daftari. The employee at serial No.4 of the
seniority list, Nanku Ram, who ranks above
the petitioner, is also the holder of an
Intermediate Certificate, but he has put in a
'no objection' in the petitioner's favour,
saying that he would have no grouse if the
petitioner were promoted to the position of
a Daftari. The petitioner, accordingly,
claimed promotion to the post of a Daftari,
making an application dated 17.01.2012 for
the
purpose.
The
Principal
of
the
Institution, after considering the seniority
list and the no objection letter dated
07.05.2012, given by the other eligible
Class-IV employee, Nanku Ram at serial
No.4 of the list, was satisfied of the
petitioner's
claim.
He,
accordingly,
forwarded the petitioner's papers for
promotion to the DIOS vide his letter dated
14.05.2012. The petitioner asserts that
though the DIOS has granted approval for
the petitioner's promotion to the post of a
Daftari, but a formal order could not be
issued. The petitioner made representations
dated
03.12.2012
and
03.06.2013,
requesting the DIOS for the issue of early
orders relating to his promotion.

5.
Faced
with
inaction
that
persisted on the second respondent's part,
the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.38533
of 2013 before this Court, praying that a
mandamus be issued to the DIOS to
consider his case for promotion on the post
of Daftari on the basis of papers submitted
by the Principal of the Institution. The
petitioner also claimed payment of salary
for the post of Daftari from the date that his
case was recommended. This Court, by an
order dated 18.07.2013, directed the DIOS
to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law on the petitioner's papers, seeking
promotion to the post of Daftari, preferably
within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of the
order made in the aforesaid writ petition.
But, before passing his orders, the DIOS
was
directed
further
to
take
into
consideration the stand of Nanku Ram as
well, a Class-IV employee, senior to the
petitioner. The petitioner's claim was
directed to be decided by a reasoned order.

6. A notice dated 11.07.2013 was
issued by the DIOS upon the petitioner's
claim for promotion to the four senior
Class-IV employees, asking them if they
would have any objection to the petitioner's
promotion as a Daftari. While these
proceedings for a consideration of the
petitioner's promotion were afoot, the
petitioner received a show cause notice
dated 10.05.2013 from the Principal of the
Institution, asking him to peruse a copy of
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Manager's memo enclosed, and disclose
his stand in defence to the fact that
according to the Manager, some papers
belonging to the institution had been stolen.
This show cause notice issued by the
Principal is confounding, and, therefore, a
reference has to be made to the Manager's
memo dated 26.04.2013, which is on record
at page 61 of the present writ petition's
paper book.

7. A perusal of the Manager's
memo dated 26.04.2013, which was the
basis of the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner regarding the case of misconduct
imputed to him, alleges that in connivance
with each other, the petitioner and Nanku
Ram, the writ petitioner of Writ-A
No.51031 of 2015, stole from the records
of the Institution the letter of approval for
appointment of one Brijesh Kumar Shukla,
a Class-IV employee, now working with
the Adarsh Inter College, Gheenpur, Mau
Aima, Allahabad and the transfer order of
another Class-IV employee, Janardan Singh
dated
21.06.2008,
working
with
the
Institution,
the
transfer
being
made
apparently from the Adarsh Inter College to
the Institution with the DIOS's approval.
The Manager imputes in his memo dated
26.04.2013 theft of copies of these
documents to the petitioner, that were filed
along with a PIL, bearing No.15464 of
2013
instituted
before
this
Court,
questioning,
by
mutual
transfer,
the
appointment of Brijesh Kumar Shukla from
the Institution to the Adarsh Inter College
and that of Janardan Singh, vice versa. The
Manager, apparently, in his letter dated
26.04.2013 imputed the misconduct of
breach of trust to the petitioner and Nanku
Ram, the writ petitioner of Writ-A
No.51031 of 2015 in stealing copies of the
said documents, and getting these filed as
part of a PIL, to question the appointment
of two other Class-IV employees in the
Institution.

8. It is also said in the Manager's
memo dated 26.04.2013 that the Principal
of the Adarsh Inter College was also
impleaded as a party respondent to the PIL.
In substance, it is said, in the Manager's
memo dated 26.04.2013, that is the basis of
the show cause notice dated 10.05.2013,
that the petitioner along with the petitioner
of Writ-A No.51031 of 2015, Nanku Ram,
stole the two documents, above referred,
from the records of the Institution and got
them annexed to the PIL filed by Kamlesh
Kumar, questioning the appointments and
the mutual transfer of the two Class-IV
employees, to wit, Brijesh Kumar Shukla
and Janardan Singh, between the Institution
and the Adarsh Inter College, which
constituted a cognizable offence. There is
also an imputation in the Manager's memo
dated 26.04.2013 that the documents under
reference, allegedly stolen by the petitioner
and the writ petitioner of Writ-A No.51031
of 2015, were utilized in the earlier Writ-A
No.28856 of 2012 filed by Nanku Ram.
Why the Managers of the Institution as well
as Adarsh Inter College, and a fortiori their
Principals,
were
so
upset
with
the
institution of PIL No.15464 of 2013 by a
third party, Kamlesh Kumar, would be
adverted to during the course of this
judgment. It must, however, be remarked
here that what commenced as a claim by
the petitioner here for promotion to the post
of a Daftari, turned to disciplinary action
against him, the culmination whereof is
impugned in the present writ petition.

9. Apart from details of the case,
that would soon be referred to in the terms
pleaded, it is also imperative to notice that
the petitioner's case is that he suffered the
impugned disciplinary action because he
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
79
staked his claim for promotion to the post
of a Daftari, and, may be, later in the day, a
further promotion to the post of an
Assistant Clerk. Currently, it seems, that
there are three posts of the Assistant Clerks
in the Institution, to one of which the
petitioner
would
have
claimed.
The
petitioner, apart from pointing out unfair
proceedings and procedural irregularities in
the disciplinary proceedings, leading to his
termination from service, urges a case of
mala fide action, because he claimed
promotion to a higher post, that is to say, an
Assistant Clerk, which the Manager of the
Institution
eyed
for
accommodating
Janardan Singh, serving at that time as a
Class-IV employee, but the Manager's
nephew after all. It is for this reason that
the petitioner has impleaded Bankey Bihari
Singh, Manager of the Institution and
Karunesh Bahadur Singh, Principal of the
said Institution as party-respondents to the
writ petition eo nomine.

10. With so much background of
the petitioner's case noticed to establish
mala fides in fact, vitiating the disciplinary
action against him, the Court would revert
to the petitioner's case as to procedural
validity of the proceedings themselves.

11. Upon receipt of the notice dated
10.05.2013 from the Principal of the
Institution, based on the Manager's memo
dated 26.04.2013, the petitioner was utterly
shocked because he had no idea about the
basis of the imputation, connecting him to
the filing of a PIL in this Court by a third
party. The petitioner made efforts to inquire
into the matter, but nothing was found that
would enable him to answer the show cause
notice dated 10.05.2013. The petitioner
personally requested the Manager of the
Institution, as well as the Principal, to
provide some detail or particulars of the
imputations made against him in order to
enable him to answer. Both the respondents
did not oblige. While the petitioner was
about his effort to know the correct facts,
he received another notice/ warning letter
dated 08.07.2013 from the Principal of the
Institution, cautioning him about his visits
to the office of the DIOS, without seeking
the Principal's permission, after disclosing
the object and purpose of the proposed
visit.

12. The petitioner received still
another show cause notice, also dated
08.07.2013, from the Principal of the
Institution saying that he and Nanku Ram,
writ petitioner of Writ-A No.51031 of
2015, in conspiracy with each other, stole
papers from the Institution, committing
breach of trust misusing their office, and in
connivance with each other, got a photostat
copy
of
these
documents
done,
in
particular, that of the mutual transfer order
of Brijesh Kumar Shukla and Janardan
Singh
dated
21.05.2008,
which
the
petitioner and Nanku Ram handed over to
Kamlesh Kumar for the purpose of
instituting
PIL
No.15464
of
2013,
impleading the Principal of the Institution
as a party. It was imputed in this notice to
the petitioner that he was involved in
activities prejudicial to the Institution and
his integrity was doubtful. The petitioner
was required to show cause within a week.
The petitioner, vide his reply dated
29.07.2013, denied the allegations and
demonstrated his non-complicity, as he
pleads.

13. The petitioner was then served
with another show cause notice dated
26.07.2013, also issued by the Principal of
the Institution, carrying eight counts of
imputations, similar to the earlier show
cause notice. He submitted a para-wise
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reply dated 05.08.2013, answering each of
the allegations, rebutting and explaining
them supported by affidavit, as the
petitioner says. Once again, the petitioner
was served with a letter dated 20.08.2013,
calling for further explanation from him,
substantially on the same allegations, but
adding to them some imputations about the
employment
of
impertinent
language,
approach to the DIOS, the filing of
affidavits in support of his reply, sworn by
himself and other peons as well etc. The
petitioner submitted a reply to the letter
dated 20.08.2013, clarifying his stand and
also tendering unconditional apology, if his
earlier reply had given some wrong
impression to the Principal.

14. The petitioner was suspended
from service pending inquiry and an
Inquiry Officer appointed, both done vide
order dated 31.08.2013. A charge-sheet,
also dated 31.08.2013, was served upon the
petitioner, which too finds mention in the
suspension order. The petitioner submitted
his reply to the charge-sheet vide his reply
dated 23.09.2013, denying all the charges
and substantiating his defence.

15. It is the petitioner's case that the
Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry
not fairly, but in a manner that was onesided to vindicate the Management and
condemn the petitioner. It is also the
petitioner's case that he appeared before the
Inquiry Officer and did his best to submit a
reply, which the Inquiry Officer did not
accept. He was, therefore, compelled to
send his reply, along with copies of
previous letters dated 07.10.2013 and
09.10.2013, by registered post. At this
stage, the petitioner says that he questioned
the suspension as well as disciplinary
proceedings, initiated on the basis of the
charge-sheet dated 31.08.2013, by means
of Writ-A No.55758 of 2013. This Court,
on 25.10.2013, passed the following order:

"Supplementary affidavit filed
today is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

The
papers
relating
to
the
suspension of the petitioner are said to
have been forwarded to the District
Inspector of Schools, who is Authority
competent under Regular 39 (3) of Chapter
III of the Regulations framed under the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
either to approve or disapprove the
suspension which are pending before the
said Authority.

Sri
S.C.
Dwivedi,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel may
obtain instructions from the District
Inspector of Schools, Allahabad as to what
orders have been passed on the suspension
matter of the petitioner.

List this case on 13.11.2013."

16. The writ petition aforesaid
came up for hearing on 14.11.2013. The
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
produced an order dated 12.03.2013,
passed by the District Inspector of Schools,
under Regulation 39 (3) of Chapter III of
the Regulations framed under the Act of
2021. The DIOS approved the petitioner's
suspension by his order dated 12.11.2013.
Accordingly, this Court proceeded to
dismiss Writ-A No.55758 of 2013 vide
order dated 14.11.2013, granting liberty to
the petitioner to challenge the order of the
DIOS, approving his suspension from
service.

17. The Inquiry Officer then
proceeded to submit his report before the
Manager of the Institution on 08.01.2014, a
copy of which was forwarded to the
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
81
petitioner along with a covering letter. The
petitioner submitted a reply on 29.01.2014.
The Principal vide order dated 01.02.2014,
without considering the petitioner's reply or
his defence, proceeded to order his removal
from service.

18. Aggrieved by the order dated
01.02.2014, the present writ petition has
been instituted.

19. A notice of motion was issued
on 18.04.2014. Parties have exchanged
affidavits, lavishly setting forth their case
in the fullest measure. There is a
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner dated 19.03.2014, a counter
affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2
dated 25.07.2023, to which, there is a
rejoinder dated 04.08.2023. There is a
supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf
of
respondent
No.2
dated
25.07.2023,
to
which
there
is
a
supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated
11.09.2023. There is a counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 5,
which is a personal affidavit of the
Manager of the Institution, that is to say,
Bankey Bihari Singh. This affidavit is
dated 25.07.2023. The petitioner has filed a
rejoinder to the said counter affidavit on
behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 5, the
rejoinder being one dated 04.08.2023. There
is a supplementary counter affidavit also filed
on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 5, which
too is a personal affidavit of the Manager,
Bankey Bihari Singh, to which the petitioner
has filed a supplementary rejoinder dated
11.09.2023. There is a second supplementary
counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.3 and 5, which again is a personal
affidavit of the Manager, Bankey Bihari
Singh. To this second supplementary counter
affidavit, the petitioner has filed a second
supplementary
rejoinder
affidavit
dated
12.12.2023. There is then a counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the
Principal of the Institution, which is a
personal affidavit of the Principal, Mukesh
Kumar Saroj. To the said affidavit filed on
behalf of the Principal of the Institution,
Mukesh Kumar Saroj, a rejoinder affidavit
dated 04.08.2023 has been filed.

20. This petition was admitted to
hearing on 08.08.2023 and extensively heard
on various dates. The personal affidavits of
the Manager were required to be filed, giving
ample opportunity, which he availed, because
there are allegations of mala fides against
him, in getting his nephew appointed with
another institution, and then, getting the
nephew transferred to his own. Later on, it is
also said that the Manager's nephew,
Janardan Singh was promoted to the post of
Assistant Clerk and the sheet anchor of the
petitioner's case is that his services were
terminated mala fide, because he was staking
claim to promotion, initially on the post of a
Daftari, and ultimately, as an Assistant Clerk,
a position which the Manager eyed for his
nephew and whom he did promote to that
post. It is said that the petitioner had to be got
rid of, in order to pave way for the Manager's
nephew, that led to all the disciplinary
proceedings on charges that are virtually noncharges and incredulous. These were cooked
up without basis in order to put the petitioner
out of way of the Manager's nephew,
Janardan Singh for promotion to the post of
Assistant Clerk. These are indeed very sordid
allegations,
and,
therefore,
this
Court
permitted the Manager to file multiple
affidavits, giving him the fullest opportunity.

21. Now, turning to the connected
writ petition, being Writ-A No.51031 of
2015, the one that has been preferred by
Nanku Ram, it must be said at the outset
that substantially the same allegations, that
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been levelled by the Manager and the
Principal of the Institution against Jai
Prakash, too have been levelled against
Nanku Ram. Nanku Ram too has been
removed from service vide order dated
07.10.2013,
after
holding
disciplinary
proceedings against him on the basis of a
charge-sheet
dated
04.05.2013.
The
petitioner (Nanku Ram) submitted a reply
to the charge-sheet on 14.05.2013. The
Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated
05.09.2013. Nanku Ram was served with a
second show cause, after which the
impugned order of termination dated
07.10.2013 was passed. In this case, Nanku
Ram carried a statutory appeal to the
Committee of Management on 04.01.2014,
followed
by
a
representation
dated
17.10.2014. The petitioner's appeal was
dismissed by a resolution of the Committee
of Management dated 19.07.2015, which
was communicated to him vide order dated
30.07.2015.

22. In substance here as well, the
petitioner's case is that he was at serial
No.4 of the list of Class IV employees and
senior to Jai Prakash. He had given a 'no
objection' about Jai Prakash, staking claim
to the post of Daftari, but the petitioner
claimed the post of Assistant Clerk in the
promotion quota, that was available at the
time. His interest came in conflict with
Janardan Singh, the Manager Bankey
Bihari Singh's nephew. It is for this reason
that Bankey Bihari Singh engineered the
entire incredible allegations, which are in
fact non-charges, to draw disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner and got
an order of termination passed after
securing a favourable inquiry report,
paving way for Janardan Singh to be
considered for promotion. It is pleaded that
Janardan Singh, after removal of Jai
Prakash and the petitioner, remained the
only qualified candidate in the feeding
cadre of Class-IV employees, eligible to be
promoted.

23. In the present case also, a
notice of motion was issued on 08.09.2015
and in course, parties have exchanged
affidavits.
There
is
a
supplementary
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition
dated 02.09.2015. After issue of notice of
motion, a counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent No.3, the DIOS, to
which, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder
dated 11.09.2013. A supplementary counter
affidavit on behalf of the DIOS, respondent
No.3, dated 18.08.2023 was filed, to which
the petitioner has filed a rejoinder dated
11.09.2023. There is then a counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 and 6, that is to say, the Committee
of Management represented by its Manager
and Bankey Bihari Singh, the Manager,
impleaded eo nomine. The aforesaid
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 and 6 dated 25.07.2023 has been
answered by the petitioner vide rejoinder
dated 04.08.2023. A counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondent No.5,
the Principal of the Institution as well, to
which the petitioner has filed a rejoinder
dated 04.08.2023. This petition too was
admitted to hearing on 08.08.2023 and
heard on various dates, along with Writ - A
No. 15765 of 2014.

24. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Upadhyay,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners, Mr. Vimal Chandra Mishra,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Principal and the Retd. Principal Karunesh
Bahadur Singh, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava,
learned Counsel for the Manager and the
Committee
of
Management
and
Mr.
Girijesh
Kumar
Tripathi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents.

25. Upon hearing learned Counsel
for the parties and perusing the record, we
consider it expedient to quote the charges
carried
in
the
charge-sheet
dated
31.08.2013,
against
Jai
Prakash,
the
petitioner of Writ-A No.15765 of 2014,
verbatim. These read:

"1. अभिलेखों एवं पत्रजातों की चोरी-आपने अपने
पदीय दाभयत्वों का दुरूपयोग करते हुए इस भवद्यालय में पूवव में
कायवरत श्री बृजेश कुमार शुक्ल (पररचारक) सम्प्रभत कायवरत आदशव
इं0का0 धीनपुर इलाहाबाद का भनयुभि अनुमोदन तथा श्री जनावदन
भसंह कायवरत (पररचारक) भवक्रमाभदत्य भसंह इं0का0 गोरापुर
इलाहाबाद एवं उि श्री बृजेश कुमार शुक्ल के पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण
पृ0सं0/एस0/स्था0/1396-1402/2008-09
भदनांक 21.05.2008 को भवद्यालय से चुराकर संस्था से
भवश्वासघात करते हुए नैभतक अपराध भकया है। आप द्वारा चुराये गये
पत्र आरोप के पुभि में संलग्नक (1) के रूप में पत्रांक
अनु0/9678-80/2005-06 भदनांक 20.07.2005 एवं
उि स्थानान्तरण आदेश भदनांक 21.05.2008 आपको रेभित है।

2. भवद्यालय में गुटबाजी करना-आरोप एक के
वभणवत पत्रजातों, अभिलेखों को भनलभम्प्बत माली श्री ननकू राम का
सहयोग लेकर आपने गुटबाजी करते हुए उि पत्रजातों को आपने श्री
ननकू राम माली (भनलभम्प्बत ) द्वारा योभजत याभचका सं0
14198/13 में संलग्न करवाने का िड़यंत्र भकया। याभचका संख्या
14198/13 में आप द्वारा चुराए गए पत्रजात संलग्नक सं0 11
एवं 12 के रूप में लगाये गये संलग्नक की छायारभत आरोप के पुभि
में आपको रेभित है।

(बी) आप भवद्यालय में गुटबाजी करते हुए भनलभम्प्बत
माली श्री ननकू राम के साथ आयेभदन भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक
इलाहाबाद कायावलय में मेरे द्वारा कई बार देखे गये हैं। सक्षम
अभधकारी से भबना पूवव अनुमभत राप्त भकए हुए कायावलय में आना
जाना आपके स्वेच्छाचाररता का पररचायक है।

(सी) आप एवं भनलभम्प्बत माली श्री ननकू राम
साभजश करके एवं गुटबाजी करते हुए चुराए गए पत्रजातों को श्री
कमलेश कुमार ग्राम खोजापुर बरना इलाहाबाद को सुलि कराकर
मा0 उच्च न्यायालय में जनभहत याभचका सं0 15464/13
योभजत कराकर उि श्री कमलेश कुमार का साथ देकर अपने
भनयोिा एवं संस्था के भवरूद्ध अनावश्यक रूप से एक वाद लभम्प्बत
कराया। ऐसा करके आपने भवद्यालय की गररमा को क्षभत पहुॅ चाने
का कुरयास भकया है।

3. रकभपपत नाम से भशकायती पत्र पेश करना:
आपने भवद्यालयी अभिलेखों/ पत्रजातों को चुराकर स्वतः भशकायती
पत्र तैयार कर तथा कभथत जे0एन0 चौधरी के नाम से भजसका कोई
वजूद ही नहीं है। भजसे भवद्यालय रबन्धाभधकरण एवं भशक्षा भविाग
के अभधकाररयों को रेभित कर संस्था भवरोधी कायो में संभलप्त पाए
गए हैं। आरोप की पुभि में आप द्वारा तैयार भकया गया है रकभपपत
नाम से भशकायती पत्र एवं अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा रेभित रकभपपत
व्यभि एवं पते पर लौटती हुए पंजीकृत डाक की छायारभत रेभित है।

4. भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक इलाहाबाद कायावलय में
कमवचाररयों का गलत हलफनामा रस्तुत करना- आपने अपने वररष्ठ
साक्षर पररचारकों एवं सववश्री तेज बहादुर, राम लखन एवं भदनेश को
अपने िड़यंत्रकारी कायो में संभलप्त करने की मंशा से सुभनयोभजत
साभजश करके उि तीनों को बहला फुसलाकर, डरवा, धमका कर
एवं भनरक्षरता का लाि उठाते हुए स्वतः हलफनामा तैयार कराकर
उि तीनों का हस्ताक्षर हलफनामें में कराया। रायोभजत हलफनामें को
भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक कायावलय में अपने पदोन्नभत रकरण
पत्रावली में संलग्न कराया। आरोप की पुभि में आप द्वारा तैयार कराए
गए हलफनामें में (उि तीनों पररचारकों के हस्ताक्षर युि) की
छायारभत संलग्नक रेभित।

5. मा0 उच्च न्यायालय को गुमराह करना: आपने
अपने दफ्तरी पदोन्नभत रकरण में मा0 उच्च न्यायालय में योभजत
याभचका सं0 38533/2013 में मा0 न्यायालय को गुमराह करते
हुए, तथ्य को भछपाते हुए आपने कहीं िी उपलेख नहीं भकया भक
आपकी पदोन्नभत रकरण में भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक इलाहाबाद के
स्तर से रकरण में भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक इलाहाबाद के स्तर से
सुनवायी हो रही है। आरोप की पुभि में याभचका सं0
33533/2013 का स्वयं अध्ययन करें एवं आपके पदोन्नभत
रकरण भजला भवद्यालय भनरीक्षक इलाहाबाद का पत्रांक अनु0
फूलपुर/6852-56 /2013-14 भदनांक 11. 07.2013 की
छायारभत आपको संलग्नक 5 के रूप में रेभित है।

6. आपने अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा भनगवत कारण बताओ
नोभटस पर मुझसे अिद्र िािा का रयोग करते हुए रबन्धक को िी
देख लेने की धमकी दी। आपने यह िी कहा भक सोसाइटीज
रभजस्रेशन कायावलय से रबन्धाभधकरण से सम्प्बभन्धत पत्रजात एक
वकील के माध्यम से भनकलवा भलया है। मेरे घर के लोग एवं मेरे
ररश्तेदार सोसाइटी में सदस्य है और शीघ्र ही रबन्धक को बदल
दूंगा। यह आपकी अनुशासनहीनता, अनधीनता एवं दुराचरण है तथा
भनयोिा के रभत आपका कदाचार है।

आप अपने बचाव पक्ष में आरोप का उत्तर पत्र राभप्त
के तीन सप्ताह के अन्तगवत रेभित करें अन्यथा यह समझा जाएगा भक
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आपको कुछ नहीं कहना है एवं उि आरोपों से आप पूरी तरह
सहमत हैं।"

26. Likewise, it is also necessary to
refer to the charges against Nanku Ram, the
writ petitioner in Writ-A No.51031 of
2015. The charges against Nanku Ram
carried
in
the
charge-sheet
dated
04.05.2013, read:

"1. आरोप सं0- आपने भज0भव0भन0 इलाहाबाद
को सम्प्बोभधत एवं अधोहस्ताक्षरी को पृष्ठांभकत अपने पत्र भदनांक
3.10.12 में भज0भव0भन0 इला0 कायावलय के राभप्त अनुिाग
सहायक एवं भवद्यालय के सहायक भलभपक श्री सुधाकर भतवारी का
फजी हस्ताक्षर बनाकर आप द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योभजत
याभचका सं0 14198/2013 में संलग्नक 7 के रूप में लगाया
गया है। यह आप द्वारा फ्राड भकया गया है, जो कमवचारी आचरण
भनयमावली के भवरुद्ध है। आरोप के पुभि में आपके पत्र भदनांक
3.10.12 की रमाभणत छाया रभत संलग्नक 1 के रूप में संलग्न
है।

2. आरोप सं0 2- आपने रबंधक/ रधानाचायव,
भवक्रमाभदत्य भसंह इं0 कालेज गोरापुर, इला0 को सम्प्बोभधत अपने
पत्र भदनांक 17.9.10, 17.8.12, 7.9.12 एवं रधानाचायव को
सम्प्बोभधत अपने पत्र भदनांक 5.2.11, 30.5.11 जो माननीय
उच्च न्यायालय में आप द्वारा योभजत उि याभचका सं0
14198/13 में संलग्नक 8 के रूप में लगाया है, पर भवद्यालय के
सहायक भलभपक श्री सुधाकर भतवारी का फजी हस्ताक्षर बनाकर
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में रस्तुत कर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय को
गुमराह भकया है, जो आप द्वारा भकया गया धोखाधड़ी का कायव है।
आरोप के पुभि में आपके पत्र भदनांक 17.9.10, 17.8.12,
7.9.12, 5.2.11, 30.5.11 की रमाभणत छाया रभतभलभप
क्रमशः संलग्नक सं0 2, 3, 4, 5 एवं 6 के रूप में संलग्न है।

3. आरोप सं0 3- आपने अपने पदीय दाभयत्व का
दुरूपयोग कर, भवश्वासघात करते हुए भवद्यालयीय अभिलेखों/
कागजातों (श्री बृजेश कुमार शुक्ल पूवव पररचारक भव0भद0 भसंह
इण्टर कालेज गोरापुर, इलाहाबाद का भज0भव0भन0 इला0 का
पूवावनुमोदन के सम्प्बन्ध में पत्रांक अनु0/9678-80/2005-06
भदनांक 20.7.2005 तथा श्री बृजेश कुमार शुक्ल एवं श्री जनादवन
भसंह पररचारक भव0भद0 भसंह इं0का0 गोरापुर, इला0 के पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण के सम्प्बन्ध में संयुि भशक्षा भनदेशक चतुथव मण्डल,
इला0 का आदेश सं0/ एस/स्थाना/53/2008-09 भदनांक
21.5.08) को चुराकर श्री कमलेश कुमार ग्राम खोजापुर पो0
वरना भजला इलाहाबाद को सुलि कराया है। आप एवं उि श्री
कमलेश कुमार ने िडयंत्र पूणव कायव करते हुए माननीय उच्च
न्यायालय में जनभहत याभचका सं. 15464/2013 योभजत कराया
है, जो आप द्वारा भकया गया संस्था भवरोधी कायव है। आरोप के पुभि
उि याभचका में संलग्नक के रूप में लगाये गये भज0भव0भन0
इलाहाबाद एवं संयुि भशक्षा भनदेशक चतुथव मण्डल, इलाहाबाद के
उि पत्रों की रमाभणत रभतभलभप संलग्नक 7 एवं 8 के रूप में संलग्न
है।

4. आरोप सं0 4 - आप द्वारा रेभित अनाहस्ताक्षररत
पंजीकृत पत्र भदनांक 25.4.13 भजसकी पंजीकृत सं0 आर0एल0
644/27.4.13 है, मुझे भदनांक 29.4.13 को राप्त हुआ। उि
आप द्वारा रेभित पत्र पर भबना अपना हस्ताक्षर भकये हुए भकस दूभित
मानभसकता से आपने मुझे रेभित भकया। यह आपकी घोर अनधीनता
को पररलभक्षत करती है। आपने जान बूझ कर कपटपूणव दुराचरण तथा
कतव्य के रभत उपेक्षा का कायव भकया है। आरोप के पुभि में आपका
अनाहस्ताक्षररत पत्र भदनांक 25.4.13 की रमाभणत छायारभत तथा
पंजीकृत भलफाफे की छाया रभत संलग्नक 9 एवं 10 के रूप में
संलग्न है।

आरोप पत्र का उत्तर पत्र राभप्त के एक सप्ताह के
अन्दर भलभखत रूप से अधोहस्ताक्षरी को रेभित करें, अन्यथा यह
समझा जाएगा भक आपको अपने बचाव पक्ष में कुछ िी नहीं कहना
है तथा उि आरोपों से आप पूणवतया सहमत हैं।"

27. A perusal of the charge-sheet
relative to the findings of the Inquiry
Officer against Jai Prakash shows that each
of the charge has been held proved by the
Inquiry Officer, without any evidence led
on behalf of the establishment to prove the
charges, and, a fortiori considered by the
Inquiry Officer to hold these proved. The
charges have been held proved on a
presumption of their truth without the
slightest of material to support the same. It
must also be remarked that some of the
charges are not charges at all. They are
imputations of conduct; not misconduct.
These involve no culpability at all.

28. As far as the first part of the
remarks of ours about the charges not being
7 All. Jai Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
85
proved by any tangible evidence or
material is concerned, we may say about
Charge No.1 that it imputes theft to Jai
Prakash of the letter of approval relating to
the appointment of Brijesh Kumar Shukla
(Peon) and the letter of approval dated
21.05.2008, sanctioning mutual transfer for
Brijesh Kumar Shukla and Janardan Singh
from Adarsh Inter College, Gheenpur,
Allahabad to the Institution and vice versa.
The findings relating to Charge No.1, or the
conclusions drawn about use of these
letters
in
complaints
pseudonymously
addressed to the officers of the Education
Department and filed as annexures in writ
petitions before this Court, are not at all
imputations or subject matter of the first
charge. The first charge is only about theft
of the two documents.