# Jayant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 4208 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jayant-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54594
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Back wages - ReinSt. -
Termination order dated 14.02.2025 is
arbitrary and illegal, as it was passed
without
holding
any
inquiry
and
in
violation of principles of natural justice -
If only ground for termination was FIR
which was lodged against petitioner and
his judicial custody from 10.01.2025 to
17.01.2025, then proper course was to
suspend him and conduct departmental
inquiry - Direct termination on this basis
causes stigma - Even if there are no
service rules to conduct departmental
inquiry against erring employee, basic
requirement of giving fair hearing must be
followed before passing punishment order
-
Competent
Authority
may
pass
appropriate order after hearing petitioner,
with due expedition. (Para 11, 13)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Director of Education
(Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow.

17. Accordingly, this writ petition
is dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ - A No. 4208 of 2025

Jayant Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aaditya Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Brijesh Kumar Singh

Civil Law - Back wages - ReinSt. -
Termination order dated 14.02.2025 is
arbitrary and illegal, as it was passed
without
holding
any
inquiry
and
in
violation of principles of natural justice -
If only ground for termination was FIR
which was lodged against petitioner and
his judicial custody from 10.01.2025 to
17.01.2025, then proper course was to
suspend him and conduct departmental
inquiry - Direct termination on this basis
causes stigma - Even if there are no
service rules to conduct departmental
inquiry against erring employee, basic
requirement of giving fair hearing must be
followed before passing punishment order
-
Competent
Authority
may
pass
appropriate order after hearing petitioner,
with due expedition. (Para 11, 13)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Basudeo Tiwary Vs Sido Kanhu University &
ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 194, (Para 9, 10)

2. Shasya Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2020 SCC OnLine All 106, Service Single No.854
of 2020; (Para 11, 13)

3. Nar Singh Pal Vs U.O.I., & ors. reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 588, (Para 6, 8, 10)

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

1. Heard Shri Vikram Singh, learned
Advocate holding brief of Shri Aaditya
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the Stateopposite party Nos.1, 2, & 3 and Shri Vikas
Srivastav Bakshi, learned counsel, who has
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite
party No.4, the same is taken on record.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-

"(I) to issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
certiorariquashing
the
impugned
termination order dated 14.02.2025 passed
by the Respondent No.4, contained as
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

(II) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service allowing him to
perform his duties along with the back
wages and all consequential benefits, while
also
extend
the
petitioner's
services
4 All. Jayant Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
analogous to the other similarly situated
persons."

3. The precise contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned order dated 14.02.2025 is a
stigmatic order, has been passed on the
basis of one fact that one F.I.R. against the
petitioner is pending, of which trial has not
been concluded by the learned trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the law is trite on the
point that if any authority passes an order
levelling any allegation regarding moral
turpitude etc. of the employee, at-least one
opportunity of hearing should be provided
to him. In the present case, no such
opportunity of hearing was provided to the
petitioner and only on the basis of the fact
that one F.I.R. has been lodged against him,
his services has been dispensed with
straightaway.

5. On the last date, when the case was
taken up, learned counsels for the opposite
parties were orally directed to seek
instructions in the matter.

6. Today, Shri Vikas Srivastava
Bakshi, learned counsel for the opposite
party No.4 has submitted that he has
received instructions in the matter and on
the basis of such instructions he has
submitted that the petitioner was untrained
and temporary employee and in his
appointment
letter
dated
11.02.2020
(Annexure No.4) it was categorically
indicated that if any irregularity or
complaint against the petitioner is received,
his
services
would
be
dispensed
immediately.

7. On being asked from learned
counsel for the opposite party No.4 as to
whether the Competent Authority has
treated the F.I.R. as irregularity or
complaint against the petitioner, he has
stated that the aforesaid F.I.R. has been
treated as irregularity/ complaint against
the petitioner. On further being asked
from Sri Vikas Srivastava Bakshi as to
whether there are any service rules to
dispense with the services of an employee,
he has submitted that there are no service
rules to dispense with the services of an
employee who has been engaged on
temporary basis. He has also stated that
even there are no service rules relating to
conduct the departmental inquiry against
any erring employee even if his status is
permanent in nature.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
the dictum of Apex Court rendered in the
case in re: Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido
Kanhu University and others reported in
(1998) 8 SCC 194 referring paras-9 & 10
thereof wherein it has been clearly
mandated that in case any punishment
order is passed, at least one opportunity of
hearing
should
be
provided
to
the
employee. For convenience, paras-9 &10
read as under:-

"9. The law is settled that nonarbitrariness is an essential facet of Article
14 pervading the entire realm of State
action governed by Article 14. It has come
to be established, as a further corollary,
that the audi alteram partem facet of
natural
justice
is
the
antithesis
of
arbitrariness. In the sphere of public
employment, it is well settled that any
action taken by the employer against an
employee must be fair, just and reasonable
which are components of fair treatment.
The conferment of absolute power to
terminate the services of an employee is
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
antithesis to fair, just and reasonable
treatment. This aspect was exhaustively
considered by a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Delhi Transport Corpn. vs. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress.

10. In order to impose procedural
safeguards, this Court has read the
requirement of natural justice in any
situations when the statute is silent on this
point. The approach of this Court in this
regard is that omission to impose the
hearing requirement in the statute under
which the impugned action is being taken
does not exclude hearing - it may be
implied from the nature of the power -
particularly when the right of a party is
affected adversely. The justification for
reading such a requirement is that the
Court merely supplies omission of the
legislature. (vide Mohinder Singh Gill &
Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner
& Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851) and except in
case of direct legislative negation or
implied exclusion. (vide S.L. Kapoor vs.
Jagmohan & Ors.)."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also drawn attention of this Court
towards one judgment decided by this
Court in the case in re: Service Single
No.854 of 2020; Shasya Singh vs. State of
U.P. & others reported in 2020 SCC
OnLine All 106 referring paras-11 and 13
whereby this Court allowed the writ
petition holding that before dispensing with
the services of an employee, a proper
inquiry should be conducted in case the
impugned order is having allegations
against the employee. For convenience,
paras-11 & 13 are being reproduced herein-below:-

"11. This Court in re: Faraz
Hameed
Ansari
vs.
Life
Insurance
Corporation Of India Thru Chairman &
Others reported in 2018(36) LCD 2062 has
held in para 15, while considering various
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, para
15 is as under :

"15. Thus, even if the impugned
action terminating the services of the
petitioners is in the realm of a contract, the
same would not be precluded from scrutiny
in exercise of its powers of judicial review
by this Court available to it under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the
considered opinion that every action of the
Corporation, whether statutory or nonstatutory or administrative in nature, has to
be necessarily in consonance with the
constitutional mandate and the impugned
order, thus, can be tested on the touchstone
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
case, the impugned action is found to be
unreasonable, irrational, illegal, perverse
or unfair, the same can be interfered with
in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of GRIDCO1
Ltd. (supra)."

13. Be that as it may, since the
appointing authority are not satisfied with
the conduct of the petitioner as being
reflected in the impugned orders and the
instruction letter and the recital to that
effect has also been given in the impugned
order, therefore, a proper departmental
inquiry strictly in accordance with law
should have been conducted and concluded
against the petitioner to that effect if it is so
warranted
and
after
providing
an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner any
appropriate order can be passed. Any
appropriate order can be passed only by
the disciplinary authority independently
and such order may not be passed pursuant
to the direction being passed by the
superior
authority."
4 All. Mohan Sharma Vs. Court of Addl. Distt. Judge/Special (S.C./S.T.) Act Bahraich & Ors. 399

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further drawn attention of this Court
towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered
in the case in re: Nar Singh Pal vs. Union
of India and others reported in (2000) 3
SCC 588 wherein vide paras-6, 8 &10 the
Apex Court has held that:

"The appellant, although a casual
labour, had acquired temporary status,.
Once an employee attains the "temporary"
status, he becomes entitled to certain
benefits one of which is that he becomes
entitled to the constitutional protection
envisaged
by
Article
311
of
the
Constitution and other articles dealing with
services under the Union of India. The
services were terminated on account of the
allegation of assault made against the
appellant. The order of termination in the
instant case, cannot be treated to be a
simple order of retrenchment. It was an
order passed by way of punishment and,
therefore, was an order of dismissal which,
having been passed on the basis of
preliminary inquiry and without holding a
regular departmental inquiry, cannot be
sustained."

11. Having tested the impugned order
in the light of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the decisions so cited
above, I find that the impugned order dated
14.02.2025
is
illegal,
arbitrary
and
unwarranted inasmuch as the aforesaid
punishment order has been passed in utter
violation of principles of natural justice and
without conducting any inquiry to that
effect. Even if the reason to terminate the
services of the petitioner is that one F.I.R.
was lodged against him wherein he
remained under judicial custody with effect
from
10.01.2025
to
17.01.2025,
the
petitioner should have been placed under
suspension
pending
the
departmental
inquiry. But terminating his services only
for the aforesaid reason casts stigma upon
him. Besides, if there are no service rules
to conduct the departmental inquiry against
erring employee, at-least the principles of
natural justice must be followed before
passing the impugned punishment order.
12. Therefore, there is an apparent error on
the face of the impugned order dated
14.02.2025, hence, the same is hereby set
aside/ quashed only on the limited ground.

13. It is always open for the
Competent Authority to pass appropriate
order strictly in accordance with law by
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and if such order is required, the
same may be passed with expedition.

14. Since the impugned order dated
14.02.2025 has been set aside/ quashed,
therefore, consequential order may be
passed as per law.

15. The writ petition is, therefore,
allowed.

16. Consequences to follow.

17. No order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 399
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ A No. 4420 of 2024

Mohan Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Court
of
Addl.
Distt.
Judge/Special
(S.C./S.T.) Act Bahraich & Ors.
 ...Respondents