# Rama Nand Pandey v. The Director, Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Vibhag & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39048
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-nand-pandey-v-the-director-harijan-evam-samaj-kalyan-vibhag-others-39048
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1ALL] Rama Nand Pandey V. The Director, Harijan Evam Samaj Kalyan Vibhag & others. 13
 counter-affidavit. The only difference in
the two categories is in the mode of
recruitment. In our opinion this can not make
any difference in respect of their salaries and
allowances since both the categories do the
same work and functions.

3.

The
petitioners
have
filed
a
supplementary rejoinder affidavit in which it
is stated that the same pay scale has been
granted to the petitioners as were granted to
their counter-parts pointed by the Central
Government and hence the remaining claim
now is about payment of same allowances and
other benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court
in Jaipal & others v. State of Hariyana &
others, reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court
1504 and Bhagwan Das and others v.State of
Hariyana reported in AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 2049.

5. In our opinion the aforesaid decisions
of the Supreme Court squarely apply to the
facts of this case. The writ petition is
accordingly allowed and a mandamus is
issued to the respondents to give the benefits
as prayed for by the petitioners.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$,
7+( +21·%/( 906$+$, -
-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DPD 1DQG 3DQGH\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
'LUHFWRU
+DULMDQ
(YDP
6DPDM
.DO\DQ
9LEKDJ
83
/XFNQRZ DQG
RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5& 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 9. 5DL

1DWXUDO -XVWLFH3ULQFLSOH RI ±1RQ &RPSOLDQFH
ZLWK (IIHFW
+HOG
7KHUHIRUH LQ DEVHQFH RI WKH QRWLFH RQ WKH
UHFRUG RI WKH HQTXLU\ RIILFHU WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V
FODLP WKDW QR QRWLFH ZDV VHUYHG RQ KLP
DSSHDUV WR EH FRUUHFW 6LQFH WKH WLPH IL[HG E\
WKH +LJK &RXUW LQ WKH RUGHU GDWHG
KDG H[SLUHG WKH FRPPLWWHH DGRSWHG D QRYHO
SURFHGXUH RI VHQGLQJ IRU SHWLWLRQHU :KHQ KH
FDPH WR WKH FROOHJH DIWHU
 ,W LV
GHQLHG E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU (YHQ DVVXPLQJ
WKDW SHWLWLRQHU ZDV VHQW IRU QR HQTXLU\ FRXOG
EH KHOG ZLWKRXW LQWLPDWLQJ WKH SHWLWLRQHU
WKDW WKH FRPPLWWHH SURSRVHG WR KROG LQTXLU\
RQ
WKH
GDWH
IL[HG
E\
LW
7KH
HQWLUH
SURFHHGLQJV FRQGXFWHG E\ WKH FRPPLWWHH
DIWHU

ZHUH
DJDLQVW
SULQFLSOHV
RI
QDWXUDO MXVWLFH SDUD

By the Court

1. The petitioner was appointed on
20.7.1964 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade
in Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur city
which was a private institution established in
the year 1956 for imparting education to deaf
and dumb students. The institution received
grant-in-aid from the State Government since
1958. The petitioner was suspended by the
manager of the institution on 29/30.3.87 A
charge sheet was served on the petitioner. The
petitioner
submitted
his
reply
on
13.4.1987/14.4.1987.
He
denied
the
allegations. It is alleged by the petitioner that
the enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry
nor gave any opportunity of hearing to defend
himself and submitted the report against him.

2. Before a final decision could be taken
in the matter of the petitioner the institution
was taken over by the state government by
G.O. dated 11.7.88 It was renamed as Rajkiya
Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur. Since
the institution was taken over by the
government,
the
petitioner
became
an
employee of the state government and by
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
14
order
dated
5.4.91
the
petitioner
was
appointed in suspension animation w.e.f.
11.7.88 as teacher in the institution. It was
also ordered that the petitioner shall be paid
subsistence allowance but the petitioner
alleges that no subsistence allowance was
paid to him. The petitioner filed civil suit no.
1723 of 1987 which was subsequently
withdrawn by him on 15.2.92 and thereafter
he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5968 of
1992 This petition was disposed of by this
court on 4.11.93 with a direction to the
respondents to take decision with regard to
enquiry within a period of three months and if
the respondents feel that a fresh enquiry was
necessary they may hold it within the period
of three months and in case the orders are not
passed by the respondents the suspension
order shall be ceased to be operative. The
respondent no. 1 by his order dated 15.5.95
dismissed the petitioner from service. It is this
order dated 15.5.95 which is under challenge
in the instant writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri R.C. Singh , Learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Rai
brief holder State of Uttar Pradesh appearing
for the respondents. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
urged
that
the
enquiry
conducted by the Manager was ex-parte and
no opportunity of hearing was given to him
nor any date for enquiry was fixed by the
enquiry officer nor he was supplied copy of
the enquiry report. He further urged that the
respondents
did
not
hold
any
enquiry
themselves, though this court permitted the
respondents to hold the enquiry but they relied
on the earlier ex-parte report which was
submitted without following principles of
natural justice. He further urged that this
enquiry report dated 28.3.88 was never served
on the petitioner. It was ex-parte , therefore,
it could not have been accepted. On the other
hand learned state counsel appearing for the
respondents has produced the records in
compliance of the order of the court as well as
the enquiry report dated 28.3.88. He urged
that from perusal of the enquiry report it is
established that the petitioner did participate
in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, there
was no violation of principles of natural
justice
and
the
petitioner
having been
dismissed from service by the respondents the
impugned order does not call for any
interference.

4. The petitioner in paragraph 33 and 34 of
the writ petition has clearly stated that the
enquiry officer did not call the petitioner to
appear before the enquiry committee to
defend his case. It has further been stated that
the copy of the enquiry report was not
supplied to the petitioner. In paragraph 22 of
the petition it has been stated that the enquiry
officer did not sent any notice or letter to the
petitioner requiring him to appear before him
to defend and the enquiry report was ex-parte.
In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit the
facts stated in paragraph 22 of the writ
petition
are
vaguely
denied
by
the
respondents. The denial is not supported by
any document. Even from the records
produced by the state counsel there is no
evidence to show that the enquiry officer
fixed any date for enquiry or issued any notice
or letter to the petitioner for appearing in the
enquiry .The enquiry report dated 28.3.88 has
been produced by the state counsel. Since it
was not served on the petitioner he could not
refute the allegations that he refused to accept
the notice sent through Ram Deo peon fixing
10.3.88 and therefore failure to challenge the
recital could not lead to an adverse inference
against the petitioner. As stated earlier the
alleged notice sent through Ram Deo peon
does not form part of the record of enquiry
proceedings. The enquiry thus was held
without intimating the petitioner . But since
the state counsel has vehemently relied on the
recital in the enquiry report to substantiate his
submission that the petitioner participated in
the enquiry it may be examined. From the
recital in the report it is clear that the subcommittee fixed 10th and 22 nd March 1988 .
And the petitioner did not appear on these
dates. In paragraph 4 of the report it is stated
1ALL] Km. Asha Raina V. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun & others. 15
that when the petitioner came to college
after 22.3.88 he was sent for and when asked
about the charges he denied . It is thus clear
that the committee did not take any action due
to absence of petitioner in response to notice
sent by it. Rather as mentioned in paragraph 4
of the report it sent for the petitioner after
22.3.88 when he came to the college.
Therefore, in absence of the notice on the
record of the enquiry officer the petitioner's
claim that no notice was served on him
appears to be correct. Since the time fixed by
the High Court in the order dated 4.11.93 had
expired the committee adopted a novel
procedure of sending for petitioner. When he
came to the college after 22.3.88. It is denied
by
the
petitioner.
Even assuming that
petitioner was sent for no enquiry could be
held without intimating the petitioner that the
committee proposed to hold inquiry on the
date fixed by it .The entire proceedings
conducted by the committee after 22.3.88
were against principles of natural justice.

5. In the result this writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order dated 15.5.1995
passed by respondent no 1, Annexure-9 to the
writ petition is quashed with all consequential
benefits of service to the petitioner. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner and pay his entire arrears of salary
w.e.f. 5.4.91 within a period of two months
from the date a certified copy of this order is
produced before respondent no.1

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
+21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1
+21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1-
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
.P $VKD 5DLQD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
5HQW
&RQWURO
DQG
(YLFWLRQ
2IILFHU
'HKUDGXQ
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU 3HWLWLRQHU
0U5DMHVK 7DQGRQ
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJV 5HJXODWLRQ RI OHWWLQJ
5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW 6 D
E
UHDGZLWK
5 'HHPHG YDFDQF\ ±
,QVSHFWLRQ ZLWKRXW QRWLFH DQG LQ DEVHQFH RI
SHWLWLRQHU ZKR ZDV LQ SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH
DFFRPPRGDWLRQ LQ TXHVWLRQ (IIHFW
+HOG
7KH GHHPHG YDFDQF\ RFFXUV XQGHU VHFWLRQ
 D E RI WKH $FW ZKHQ WKH ODQGORUG
RU
WHQDQW
KDV
VXEVWDQWLDOO\
UHPRYHG
KLV
HIIHFWV IURP WKH EXLOGLQJ RU KDV DOORZHG LW WR
EH RFFXSLHG E\ DQ\ SHUVRQ ZKR LV QRW D
PHPEHU RI KLV IDPLO\ 7KH 5HQW FRQWURO
,QVSHFWRU IRXQG WKDW WKH KRXVH ZDV ORFNHG
DQG
LW
ZDV
LQ
WKH
SRVVHVVLRQ
RI
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU ,W FRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ WUHDWHG DV
YDFDQW XQOHVV LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW LW ZDV
RFFXSLHG E\ WKH WHQDQW DQG KH KDG YDFDWHG
0DMRU 1LUPDO DOLDV 1LPPX ZDV QRW IRXQG WR
KDYH YDFDWHG WKH GLVSXWHG DFFRPPRGDWLRQ
DV WHQDQW LW FRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ GHFODUHG DV
YDFDQW 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG LW ZDV VWDWHG WKDW
0DMRU 5DPDQ %DKDGXU KDG VROG WKH SURSHUW\
DQG KLV QDPH ZDV ZURQJO\ PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH
UHSRUW DV 0DMRU 1LUPDO DOLDV 1LPPX3DUD

By the Court

1. This writ petition is directed against the
order dated 16.2.1994 passed by the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer declaring the
vacancy of the premises in question.