# Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 63857 of 2007
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-sengar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53046
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - Principle
of natural justice - Appointment on
probation - Allegation of not discharging
the
duty
diligently
was
made
-
Chargesheet
was
submitted
to
the
petitioner, and the same was not denied -
Submissions as made earlier on a notice
was reiterated - Effect - Held, at this
stage principles of natural justice were
substantially complied with. (Para 22)

B. Service Law - Termination - Allegation
of not discharging the duties as Assistant
Teacher,
Vyayam
diligently
and
of
disturbing the normal working of college
was made - The allegation has not been
specifically denied on the basis of relevant
material
and
St.ments
of
witnesses
recorded during inquiry - Effect - Held, it
is well settled that termination of services
of a probationer under the Rules of the
Employment or in exercise of Contractual
Right is neither per se dismissal nor
removal - However, if the order visits the
employee
against
his
character
or
integrity, it would be an order by way of
punishment irrespective of whether the
employee was a mere probationer or
temporary - If he was terminated without
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
showing cause against his termination and
even in such matters if the principles of
natural justice were followed and there
was no deficiency of the procedure, the
writ Court would not inclined to interfere.
(Para 24 and 25)

One writ petition dismissed and another
writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
year 2004 by different orders on
ground of their long absence. No material
was produced either in pleadings or during
hearing that the said ground was factually
incorrect. Rather, it appears that in order to
adjust them, number of sanctioned seats
were increased from 14 to 25 without any
legal basis. Therefore, in absence of any
substantial material which could contradict
the ground for termination, no interference
is called for.

22. Accordingly, Writ-A Nos.
51401 of 2013, 45035 of 2016 and 39263
of 2017 filed by second set of petitioners,
i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, are
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 63857 of 2007
With
Writ A No. 52910 of 2011

Sanjay Kumar Sengar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.N. Malhotra, Ajay Bhanot, Gaurav Singh,
Kripa Shanker Singh, L.S. Yadav, Pankaj
Kumar, Ravindra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Singh, G.K. Singh,
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, R.K. Ojha, Sankalp
Narain, V.K. Singh

A. Service Law - Termination - Principle
of natural justice - Appointment on
probation - Allegation of not discharging
the
duty
diligently
was
made
-
Chargesheet
was
submitted
to
the
petitioner, and the same was not denied -
Submissions as made earlier on a notice
was reiterated - Effect - Held, at this
stage principles of natural justice were
substantially complied with. (Para 22)

B. Service Law - Termination - Allegation
of not discharging the duties as Assistant
Teacher,
Vyayam
diligently
and
of
disturbing the normal working of college
was made - The allegation has not been
specifically denied on the basis of relevant
material
and
St.ments
of
witnesses
recorded during inquiry - Effect - Held, it
is well settled that termination of services
of a probationer under the Rules of the
Employment or in exercise of Contractual
Right is neither per se dismissal nor
removal - However, if the order visits the
employee
against
his
character
or
integrity, it would be an order by way of
punishment irrespective of whether the
employee was a mere probationer or
temporary - If he was terminated without
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
showing cause against his termination and
even in such matters if the principles of
natural justice were followed and there
was no deficiency of the procedure, the
writ Court would not inclined to interfere.
(Para 24 and 25)

One writ petition dismissed and another
writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shamsher Singh Vs St. of Pun. (1974) 2 SCC
831

2. Swati Priyadarshini Vs the St. of M.P. & ors.,
2024 INSC 620).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner; Sri V.K. Singh,
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Samarth
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondents and Sri Akhilesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 2. Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samarth
Singh, learned counsel for petitioners in
connected Writ Petition, Sri Sanjeev Singh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 2 in connected petition and Ms. Shruti
Malviya, learned counsel appearing for
State-respondent in the connected petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed on
the post of Assistant Teacher, Vyayam in
pursuance of a recruitment process initiated
in pursuance of an advertisement and he
joined on 04.01.2006 with the respondentinstitution (a Minority Institution) on
probation of one year i.e. up to 3rd January,
2006, which was further extended for one
year i.e. upto 3rd January, 2008, by a
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management of School.

3. According to the petitioner,
when he was not declared permanent and
not paid regular salary, he approached the
DIOS, Hathras, who passed strict orders
dated 09.05.2007 and 21.05.2007 and
directed Institution to pay his salary, which
were challenged before this Court in WritA No. 24751 of 2007 by the respondentCommittee of Management, which was
initially tagged with present writ petition
but later on , on basis of statement made by
its counsel it was disposed of being
rendered
infructuous
by
order
dated
28.03.2024. The petitioner was thereafter
served
with
a
charge-sheet
dated
06.09.2007 making allegations that he has
not discharged his duties of Assistant
Teacher, Vyayam diligently and was
indulged
in
activities,
which
were
determined to the interest of Institution and
despite repeated requests, he had not
improved his conduct.

4. The petitioner had submitted a
reply to it and denied the charges by a reply
dated 17.09.2007. The Institution thereafter
submitted a letter dated 20.09.2007 to the
petitioner assigning reasons that they were
not satisfied with his reply and all
allegations were reiterated.

5. The Manager of the Institution
submitted a charge sheet dated 08.10.2007
mentioning eight charges. For reference the
same are reproduced hereinafter:-

"1. आपके द्वारा सांस्था में दवगत विज 2006-07
के माह जनवरी, 2007 से सत्र 2007-08 के अगस्त माह तक
कोई खेल-कूद नहीं कराया गया। प्रबन्धक महोदय द्वारा दद०
01.08.2007 की अध्यापकों के साथ की गई मीदटांग में िी
आपको बताया गया दक बार-बार कहने पर िी सांस्था में खेल-कूद
के स्तर में कोई सुधार नहीं हुआ है। इस गम्िीर व सोचनीय दस्थदत
के दलए आप दजम्मेदार हैं दजसके दलए आप जान बूझकर गम्िीर
कतजव्य की उपेक्षा के दोिी हैं।

2. आप नैदतक तथा खेलकूद, पी०टी०/स्काउट के
घांटों में जान बूझकर नहीं जाते हैं या दवलम्ब से पहुाँचते हैं। दजससे इन
दवियों का दशक्षण प्रिादवत हो रहा है। अतः आप अपनी दशक्षा
कायज कलाप ठीक से दनवाजह न करने के दोिी हैं।

3. आप दवगत सत्र 2006-07 में कक्षा 9 कृदि
(प्रथम) के कक्षाध्यापक थे। कायाजलय द्वारा प्रधानाचायज जी को
अवगत कराया गया दक आपने कक्षा के कक्षा रदजस्टर को कायाजलय
में जमा नहीं दकया है। दजससे कायाजलय का कायज बादधत है। सांस्था
अदिलेख का कायाजलय में जमा नहीं करना घोर अपराध है। ऐसा
मालूम पड़ता है दक आपने दकसी कमी को दिपाने हेतु इस कक्षा
रदजस्टर को जानबूझ कर गुम या नष्ट दकया है। अतः आप कॉलेज
ररकाडज को जानबूझकर गुम या नष्ट करने के दोिी हैं।

4. आप सांस्था दवरोधी कायों में सांदलप्त है। सांस्था
एवां सांस्थाध्यक्षों को बदनाम करने में अवाांिनीय एवां दवरोधी तत्वों से
दमलकर अनेक प्रकार की दवरोधी गदतदवदधयों में सांदलप्त है दजससे
आपकी कतजव्य दनष्टता एवां दवश्वसनीयता सांस्था के प्रदत सांददग्ध है।
अतः आप घोर कुराचरण के दोिी है।

5. आपको मौदखक रूप से अनेक बार समझाया जा
चुका है दक अपने स्तर से कोई ऐसा कायज नहीं करें जो
3 All. Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
213
अनुशासनहीनता की श्रेणी में आता हो परन्तु दफर िी आप अपने
स्तर से कोई सुधारात्मक रूख अगल में नहीं ला रहे हैं तथा अपने
साथी कमजचारी/दशक्षकों को गुमराह करते रहते हैं दजससे सांस्था का
शैक्षदणक दवकास बादधत हो रहा है, आपका यह कृत्य
अनुशासनहीनता की श्रेणी में आता है। अतः आप घोर अनधीनता व
अनुशआसनहीनता के दोिी हैं।

6. प्रबन्ध सदमदत की खेलकूद उपसदमदत ने अपने
आकदस्मक दनरीक्षण में आपको खेलकूद के समय मैदान पर नहीं
पाया गया। दवद्यादथजयों से पूिने पर पता चला दक आप अक्सर मैदान
पर नहीं आते हैं। अतः आप अपनी ड्यूटी व कतजव्यों का पालन न
करने के दोिी हैं।

7. प्रबन्ध सदमदत की खेलकूद उपसदमदत ने खेलकूद
में कोई सुधार नहीं पाया। इसके दलए आप दोिी है।

8. प्रबन्धन की सांज्ञाय में आया है दक खेलकूद के
दलए बाहर गई टीमों को खाने, नाश्ते आदद का जो पैसा दविाग से
ददया जाता है वह आपने उन दवद्यादथजयों पर पूणजरूपेण खचज न कर
उसका दुरूपयोग दकया है जो बेईमानी व भ्रष्टाचार की पररदध में
आता है इसके दलए आप दोिी हैं।"'

6. The petitioner replied to the
charge-sheet
and
denied
all
charges
levelled against him. Thereafter, the
petitioner was required to appear before the
Inquiry Committee. Learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that certain objections
were filed by the petitioner that relevant
documents were not provided still the
Inquiry Committee thereafter submitted a
report dated 14.11.2007, whereby all the
charges were found to be true and proved
and the petitioner's work was found
unsatisfactory, therefore, it was proposed
that probation period be not extended and
his services was terminated. The relevant
part of the inquiry report is reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर जाांच उपसदमदत के समक्ष
उपदस्थत नहीं हुये व उन्होने ददनाांक 01.11.2007 को पत्र द्वारा
जाांच उपसदमदत के गठन को चेलेन्ज दकया व इण्टरमीदडएट
अदधदनयम धारा 3(35) का उल्लेख दकया। जाांच उपसदमदत ने
सिी पहलुओां पर दवचार कर पाया दक जाांच सदमदत गदठत दकये
जाने का कोई प्रदतबन्ध नहीं है। श्री सेंगर ने अपने उिर में प्रधानाचायज
व प्रबन्धक पर सीधे दुराग्रह व पूवाजग्रह का आरोप लगाया है। अतः
प्रबन्ध सदमदत ने दनष्पक्ष न्याय को ध्यान में रखते हुये प्रबन्धक व
प्रधानाचायज को अलग रखते हुये जाांच उपसदमदत का गठन दकया जो
दवदध अनुसार है। अतः श्री सेंगर का इस बारे में ददया गया आवेदन
दनरस्त दकया जाता है।

श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर ने जाांच उपसदमदत के अध्यक्ष
से समय पूवज प्रातः 11:00 बजे प्रबन्धक कक्ष में प्रबन्धक व श्री
अांजय जैन, सदस्य प्रबन्ध सदमदत की उपदस्थदत में दमलकर कहा दक
उन्होने जो आरोप पत्र का उिर ददया है एवां जो पत्र ददनाांक
01.11.2007 को ददया है, उसके अदतररक्त उन्हें कुि नहीं कहना
है. परन्तु उन्होंने इस स्थान पर हस्ताक्षर करने से मना कर ददया था ।
उन्होंने यह िी आरोप लगाया दक उनके सहयोगी जो दवदिन्न खेलों
की उपसदमदतयों के प्रिारी हैं, सहयोग नहीं करते हैं। अन्त में वह यह
कह कर चले गये दक वह उपसदमदत के समक्ष उपदस्थत नहीं होंगे।
सदमदत श्री सेंगर द्वारा लगाये गये अक्षेप के सम्बन्ध में श्री िानु प्रताप
दसहां व श्री धमेन्र पाल दसहां यदुवांशी के बयान दलये और श्री सेंगर
के इस आक्षेप को गलत पाया।

सदमदत ने श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर के आरोपो के उिर
को साक्ष्य के अिाव में मानने योग्य नहीं पाया, अतः सदमदत ने
दबन्दुवार जाांच करने का दनश्चय दकया।

सदमदत ने िी राजवीर दसहां के बयान व कक्षाओां में
सीधे दवद्यादथजयों से पूांिताि करने पर पाया दक वह नैदतक दशक्षा व
खेलकूद पी०टी० व स्काउट के घांटे में नहीं जाते या दवलम्ब से
पहुांचते है। उन्होने नैदतक दशक्षा व खेलकूद का प्रश्न पत्र बनाने से िी
साफ इांकार कर ददया था दजसका साक्ष्य देखने के पश्चात यह दनणजय
दनकाला दक उन पर लगाया गया आरोप सांख्या 2 सत्य है। अतः श्री
सेंगर जानबूझकर कतजव्य की उपेक्षा अनधीनता व अनुशासनहीनता
के दोिी है।

कालेज के मुख्य दलदपक श्री दवनोद कुमार जैन के
बयान व तथ्यों की जानकारी करने पर कोई दवपरीत साक्ष्य न होने के
कारण सदमदत ने आरोप सांख्या-3 को सच माना है। दजसके आधार
पर श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर कालेज ररकाडज को जानबूझ कर गुम करने
व नष्ट करने के दोिी पाये गये।

सदमदत के सामने जो दवदिन्न प्रकार के साक्ष्य
उपलब्ध हुये दजसमें Local Intelligence Unit की ररपोटज
िी शादमल हैं दजसमें की सेंगर का नाम उदल्लदखत है, के आधार पर
इस बात की पुदष्ट होती है दक श्री सेंगर की कतजव्य दनष्ठा एवां
दवश्वसनीयता सांस्था के प्रदत नहीं है। अतः श्री सेंगर घोर दुराचरण के
दोिी हैं और उन पर लगाया गया आरोप सांख्या 4 सत्य है।

आरोप सांख्या 1 व 5 के सम्बन्ध में प्रधानाचायज का
ध्यान खेलकूद उपसदमदत की ररपोटज के आधार पर यह दनष्किज
दनकलता है दक श्री सेंगर को सुधार हेतु एक विज का जो पररवीक्षण
का समय बढाया गया, उसके बावजूद िी खेलकूद की गदतदवदधयों
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
में कोई सुधार नहीं हुआ। श्री सेंगर को समय समय पर आगाह िी
दकया गया पर उन पर इसका कोई असर नहीं हुआ । यह िी सांज्ञान
में आया है दक श्री सेंगर खेलकूद के मैदान में अदधकतर बाहरी
व्यदक्तयों को दखलाकर यह ददखाना चाहते हैं दक खेलकूद में सुधार
हुआ है और प्रबन्धन को गुमराह करने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं। मैनपुरी
के दलये चयदनत दवद्यादथजयों के दशकायत पत्र की जाांच के बाद पाया
गया दक श्री सेंगर चयदनत दवद्यादथजयों को िोड़ गये व उनकी जगह
बाहरी लोगों को ले गये जो दनहायत ही गलत कायज है। अगर
आयोजकों के सांज्ञान में यह बात आ जाती तो दवद्यालय की बदनामी
होती व उसका नाम काली सूची में डाल ददया जाता। इस प्रकार श्री
सेंगर जानबूझ कर गम्िीर कतजव्य की उपेक्षा, प्रबन्धन को गुमराह
करने और घोर अनुशासनहीनता के दोिी है।

आरोप सांख्या 6 व 7 के बारे में श्री सेंगर का उिर
दक सांददिजत खेलकूद उपसदमदत का उन्हे कोई ज्ञान नहीं है- झूठा है।
श्री सेंगर खेलकूद उपसदमदत के सदस्यों से दमलते रहे हैं व उन्होने
उन्हे पत्र िी दलखे हैं इसके बावजूद उनका यह कहना झूठ का
आधार लेकर तथ्यों को दिपाने का प्रयास है। प्रबन्ध सदमदत की
खेल कूद उपसदमदत ने अपनी आकदस्मक दनरीक्षण की ररपोटज व
मैदान पर दवद्यादथजयों से पूिने पर पाया दक श्री सेंगर मैदान पर
अदधकाांश नहीं आते है। यह तथ्य पूणज रूप से सत्य पाया गया।
दवद्यालय व दवद्यादथजयों के दहत में प्रबन्ध सदमदत का कोई िी सदस्य
कालेज की गदतदवदधयों का आकदस्मक दनरीक्षण कर सकता है। यदद
श्री सेंगर अपनी ड्यूटी ठीक से करते तो उन्हें इस प्रकार के दनरीक्षण
पर क्यों ऐतराज होता। अतः सदमदत ने श्री सेंगर को कतजव्यों का
पालन न करने का दोिा पाया व उस पर लगाये गये यह आरोप सां०
6 व 7 सत्य पाये गये।

आरोत सांख्या-8 के सम्वन्ध में यह सांज्ञान में आया
दक श्री सेंगर जो बाहरी लोगों को कालेज में मैनपुरी दखलाने ले गये
उनका टी०ए०/ डी०ए० का दबल उन्होने पूणज पैसा प्राप्त करने हेतु
प्रेदित दकया। जब उस पर यह आपदि लगाई गई तो उन्होने उसे काट
कर ठीक दकया । यह दस्तावेज ररकाडज पर उपलब्ध है। इस प्रकार
उन्होने सरकारी पैसे का गलत तथ्यों के आधार पर दनकाल कर
अपने स्वाथज के दलये उपयोग करने का प्रयास दकया ।

इसी आधार पर यह िी माना जा सकता हैं दक पूवज में
िी उन्होंने इस प्रकार का कृत्य दकया होगा। अतः श्री सेंगर
धोखाधड़ी से सरकारी पैसा दनकालने व उसका दुरूपयोग करने के
प्रयास के दोिी हैं जो बेईमानी व भ्रष्टाचार की पररदध में आता है।

समीक्षा :

उक्त सिी आरोपों को दृदष्टगत रखते हुये सवज सह‌मदत
से सदमदत ने यह पाया दक श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर व्यायाम दशक्षक पर
लगाये गये सिी आरोप सत्य दसद्ध होते हैं दजसके आधार पर वह
कतजव्य की उपेक्षा, अनधीनता, घोर अनुशासनहीनता, घोर दुराचरण
प्रबन्धन को गुमराह करने, अपने कतजव्यों का पालन न करने, बेईमानी
व भ्रष्टाचार के दोिी हैं। वह व्यायाम अध्यापन के कायज में िी सक्षम
नहीं पाये गये। एक विज का पररवीक्षण कायजकाल िी बढाये जाने के
बाद िी खेलकूद के उन्नयन में कामयाब नहीं हुये।

दनष्किज

श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर स्थाई अध्यापक नहीं है और
उनका पररवीक्षण कायजकाल जनवरी 2008 के प्रथम सप्ताह में
समाप्त हो रहा है। श्री सेंगर पर लगाये गये आरोपों की पुदष्ट व उनके
असन्तोिजनक कायज को देखते हुये यह उप सदमदत सवज सहमदत से
दवद्यालय और दवद्यादथजयों के दहतों को ध्यान में रखते हुये सांस्तुदत
करती हैं दक श्री सांजय कुमार सेंगर का स्थाईकरण न दकया जाये
दजसके फलस्वरूप पररवीक्षण काल समादप्त होने पर उनकी सेवायें
स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जायेंगी।

उपयुजक्त ररपोटज प्रबन्धसदमदत को दवचार हेतु प्रेदित"
(emphasis supplied)

7. The Manager of Committee of
Management of college thereafter issued a
show cause notice dated 20.11.2007 along
with a copy of the inquiry report and fixed
a date for consideration of the report and
reply.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 was
passed whereby petitioner's services were
directed to be terminated with effect from
03.01.2008. The impugned order dated
26.11.2007 is mentioned hereinafter:-

 "सांस्था की प्रबांध काररणी सदमदत की बैठक सांस्था में
ददनाांक 25-11-2007 को हुई। बैठक में अधोहस्ताक्षरकताज द्वारा
आपको प्रेदित अनुशासनहीनता आदद सम्बन्धी आरोप पत्र ददनाांक
8-10-2007 से सांबांदधत जाांच आप सदमदत द्वारा प्रस्तुत जाांच
ररपोटज सिा के समक्ष रखी गई। जाांच उपसदमदत ने अपनी जाांच में
सिी आपसे सांबांदधत अनुशासनहीनता सम्बन्धी सिी आरोपों को
साक्ष्यों एवां गवाही के आधारों पर पूणजरूप से सही पाया और आपको
सांस्थादहत में स्थाई नहीं कांरने की सांस्तुदत की है। अतः सिा में
उपदस्थदत श्री सदस्यों ने जाांच में सही पाये गये आरोपों उपजाांच
सदमदत की सांस्तुदत पर गम्िीरता से दवचार दकया और सब सम्पदि
से एक प्रस्ताव पाररत दकया दक सांस्था की गररमा एवां स्थादहत में श्री
सांजय कुमार सेंगर सहायक अध्यापक व्यायाम दशक्षक को स०अ०
पद पर स्थाई नहीं दकया जाय और उनकी सेवाओां को समाप्त कर
ददया जाय और सेवा समादप्त की नोदटस की सांजय कुमार सेंगर
सहायक अध्यापक को िेज ददया जाय और सांबांदधत दविागीय
3 All. Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
215
अदधकाररयों को इस वस्तु दस्थदत से अवगत करा ददया जायां जाांच
उपसदमदत ने अपने पत्र ददनाांक 26-10-2007 को आपको
ददनाांक 1-11-2007 को उपसदमदत के समक्ष अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत
करने को बुलाया तो आप स्वयां उपदस्थत हुए और कहा दक मैंने जो
पत्र आज ददनाांक 1-11-2007 को ददया है उसके अदतररक्त मुझे
इस सम्बन्ध में कुि नहीं कहना है और इस व्यान पर हस्ताक्षर करने
से मना कर ददया और उठकर चले गये जाांच उप सदमदत ने आपको
उिर को साक्ष्य के अिाव में मानने योग्य नहीं पाया है। और जाांच
उप सदमदत के गठन को उदचत ठहराया है।

जाांच उपसदमदत ने समय साररणी व्यवस्थापक एवां
सीधे सांबांदधत कक्षाओां दवद्यादथजयों से पूिताांि करने पर पाया दक
आप नैदतक एवां शारीररक खेलकूद दशक्षा के अदनवायज दविय व पी
टी तथा स्काउट के घण्टों में पढाने नहीं जाते है या दवलम्ब से पहुांचते
है। अपने नैदतक एवां शारीररक खेलकूद दशक्षा अदनवायज दवजय के
प्रश्न के प्रश्न पत्र बनाने से स्पष्ट मना कर ददया और कहा दक पेरे पास
समय नहीं है। इस बात को सांस्था के परीक्षा कायाजलय के साक्ष्यों के
आधार पर जाांच सदमदत ने सत्य पाया है। आप इसदलए जानबूझकर
कतजव्य की उपेक्षा अधीनता व अनुशासनहीनता के दोिी है अतः
आरोप सांख्या-2 सत्य है। इस सम्बन्ध में आप आपने कोई
स्पष्टीकरण नहीं ददया है।

जाांच उपसदमदत ने सांस्था के मुख्य दलदपक और अन्य
तथ्यों की जानकारी पर आरोप सांख्या-3 को तथ्य पाया दजसके
आधार पर आप कादलज ररकाडज को जानबूझकर गुम करने अथवा
नष्ट करने के दोिी पाये गये है इस सम्बन्ध में आपने कोई स्पष्टीकरण
साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं दकया है। उपसदमदत के सामने जो दवदिन्न साक्ष्य
उपलब्ध कराये गये दजनमें स्थानीय जाांच यूदनट की ररपोटज सदमदत है
दजसमें आपका नाम दशकायत करता के रूप में उल्लेदखत है के
आधार पर इस बात का पुदष्ट होती है दक बाद को कतजव्य दनष्ठता एवां
दवश्वसनीयता सांस्था के प्रदत सांददग्ध कारण नहीं है आप पर लगाया
गया आरोप सांख्या-4 सत्य है। आप द्वारा खेलकूद गदतदवदधयों में
कोई अदिक्षदत नहीं ली जाती है खेलकूद उप सदमदत एवां सस्था के
प्रधानाचायज की ररपोटों के आधार पर जाांच उप सदमदत द्वारा जाांच में
यह पाया गया दक आप खेलकूद मैदान में अनुपदस्थत रहते है और
बाहरी िात्रों की दवठाकर ददखाना चाहते है दक खेल कूद स्तर में
सुधार हुआ है। मण्डलीय स्तर पर कबडडी टीम में बाहरी कायों को
इस सन 2007-08 में दखलाने जनपद मैनपुरी मे ले गये थे आरोप
सांख्या 1 व 05 साक्ष्यों के आधार पर सत्य पाये गये है। अतः आप
जानबूझकर गम्िीर कतजव्य की उपेक्षा प्रबांधन को गुमराह करने एवां
घोर अनुशासनहीनता के दोिी हैं इस सम्बन्ध में आपका उिर सन्तोि
जनक नहीं है। आरोप सांख्या 06 व 07 के बारे में आपका उिर
असत्य है झूठ बोलकर आपने सही सांस्था को दिपाने का असफल
प्रयास दकया है। खेलकूद उपसदमदत ने अपनी आकदस्मक दनरीक्षण
तथा दवद्यादथजयों से पूिने पर पाया दक आप खेल मैदान पर
अनुपदस्थत चाहते है अतः आप कतजव्यों के पालन नहीं करने के
दोिी है और आरोप सांख्या 06 व 07 सत्य है इस सम्बन्ध में
आपके स्तर से कोई साक्ष्य या गवाही प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है। जाांच
सदमदत ने अपनी जाांच में पाया दक बाहरी लोगों को दखलाने कबडडी
की टीम मैनपुरी ले गये तो उनका टी ए एवां डी ए का दबल पूरा पैसा
प्राप्त करने के दलए प्रस्तुत दकया। जब सांस्थागत िात्रों ने दवरोध दकया
तो अपने दवल को सांशोदधत कर पेश दकया वह सांशोदधत दस्तावेज
ररकाडज पर उपलब्ध है आपने इसी स्वीकार दकया तथा िूल वश
करने का बयान ददया अतः आरोप सांख्या 08 सत्य पाया गया है।
आप सांस्था से पैसा दनकालने व उनका स्वयां के दलए दुरूपयोग करने
के प्रयास के दोिी है जो बेईमानी व भ्रष्टाचार की पररदध में आता है।
इस प्रकार आप अपने दवरूद्ध बने आरोपो के सापेक्ष कोई गवाही एवां
साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने में असमथज रहे है और आरोपों के सम्बन्ध में प्राप्त
उिर एवां स्पष्टीकरण सन्तोि नहीं है। जबदक आपको गवाही एवां
साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने में अधोहस्ताक्षरी ने अनेक अवसर प्रदान दकये है।
ऐसी पररदस्थदत में आपको सांस्था में सेवा में रखना न्याय सांगत नहीं
होगा।

अतः आपकी सहायक अध्यापक व्यायाम दशक्ष पद
पर सेवाऐां ददनाांक 03.01.2009 के बाद स्वतः समाप्त हो
जावेगी।"

9. Aforesaid order was impugned in
present writ petition. A fresh advertisement
to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher,
Vyayam was also under challenged by way
of an amendment.

10. It is not under dispute that in
pursuance
of
said
fresh
recruitment
process, one Waliuzzaman Khan was
appointed and when his salary was not paid
by subsequent order dated 29.06.2009, he
along with Committee of Management had
filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.
52910 of 2011 (C/M K.L. Jain Inter
College Sasni Mahamaya Nagar & Anr. vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.), which was also heard
alongwith this writ petition.

11. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner (Sanjay Kumar
Sengar)
has
submitted
that
in
the
disciplinary proceedings, Principles of
Natural Justice were not followed and no
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to
place his case before the Appointing
Authority.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that impugned order was passed
only on basis of inquiry report without
considering his reply and that all the
allegations were false. The inquiry was not
conducted
in
pursuance
of
relevant
provisions.

12. Learned counsel has further
stated that the petitioner ought to have
declared permanent after probation period
of one year was completed. However, it
was extended for further period of one year
without any legal backup or provisions.
The order of termination being a stigmatic
order, therefore, his stand has to be
considered
before
the
impugned
termination order was passed. However, no
such opportunity was granted.

13. Learned counsel also submitted
that by conducting a fresh recruitment,
despite present matter was seized with this
Court has created a position that even in an
event this writ petition would allowed,
petitioner probably may not get any benefit.

14. Per contra, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Committee of
Management has supported the impugned
order and submitted that petitioner was
under probation and upon inquiry, his
conduct was not found satisfactory as he
was indulged in illegal activities and has
not discharged his duties as Assistant
Teacher, Vyayam diligently, therefore, his
probation
was
not
extended
and,
accordingly, his services was terminated by
complying with due process including the
principle of natural justice.

15.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for newly selected candidate also
submitted that fresh recruitment process, to
fill up a post of Assistant Teacher, Vyayam,
was in regard to the other post and which
would not give any adverse effect on the
claim of the petitioner.

16. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in the connected writ petition
being Writ-A No. 52910 of 2011 (C/M
K.L. Jain Inter College Sasni Mahamaya
Nagar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
submits that the separate recruitment
process was initiated to fill up post of
Assistant Teacher, Vyayam and since the
posts were not created subject wise,
therfore, there was no illegality to initiate
process to fill up a post of Assitant
Teacher, Vyayam and after due process the
petitioner No. 2 in said writ petition was
appointed and when his salary was stopped
from
the
State
Exchequer,
he
had
approached this Court by way of above
referred petition wherein by an interim
order dated 28.05.2013, the impugned
order therein was stayed and accordingly
petitioner no. 2 is still working and being
paid regular salary. There is no allegation
that selection process was de hors of
relevant provisions.

17. Learned counsel for the State
has
made
an
objection
to
the
maintainability of the said writ petition and
has submitted that it has been filed by both
i.e. Committee of Management and the
selected
candidate,
whereas
the
writ
petition is accompanied by an affidavit of
selected candidate, who has no concern
with the Committee of Management.

18.
Sri
V.K.
Singh,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Samarth Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioners
in
referred
writ
petition
submitted that this writ petition may be
3 All. Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
217
considered to be filed by the petitioner no.
2 only as he was the affected party.

19. Heard the counsel for parties
and perused the record. Petitioner, Sanjay
Kumar Sengar, was appointed as Assistant
Teacher,
Vyayam
on
02.01.2006
on
probation for a period of one year, which
was extended for further one year. Though
during probation period if the services of a
selected candidate was not satisfactory his
probation may not be extended, still since it
appears there were certain allegations,
therefore a department proceeding was
initiated. There is no much legal force in
arguments of the counsel for petitioner that
he ought to have been considered to be
permanent after completion of probation of
one year. It is also not under dispute that
after completion of satisfactory service
during the probation, an employee can be
given permanent appointment.

20. The allegations against the
petitioner are mainly of not discharging his
duties as Assistant Teacher, Vyayam
diligently as well as the standard of games
were not improved during his service of
two years of probation.

21.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
not
brought
on
any
substantial material that standard of sports
was improved during his tenure of two
years of probation. An appointment of
probationary can be set aside without even
conducting an inquiry if his services were
found unsatisfactory. However, as observed
above it appears that since there were
certain allegations against the petitioner.
Therefore, a charge sheet was issued and
thereafter an inquiry was also conducted.

22. In order to consider whether
principles of natural justice were followed
or not, the Court has looked into the inquiry
report. There is no denial that a charge
sheet was submitted to which the petitioner
and
he
has
reiterated
his
earlier
submissions submitted on a notice issued
by
the
Manager
of
Committee
of
Management of concerned college and
thereafter an inquiry report was submitted.
Therefore, at this stage principles of natural
justice were substantially complied with.

23. On basis of the inquiry report, a
show cause notice was issued by the
Appointing Authority. At this stage, the
petitioner has claimed that copy of the
show cause notice was not served upon
him. Therefore, he was not able to file any
reply. It has also been argued that the
Committee of Management has also not
granted substantial opportunity and it was
an ex party report. The only consideration
left is whether the show cause notice was
served
or
not
and
any
reply
for
consideration was filed or not and if filed
whether it was considered. In this regard,
the reply of the Committee of Management
in the counter affidavit would relevant and
for reference its contents of para 17 are
reproduced hereinafter:-

 "17.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no.17 of the Affidavit filed in
support of the amendment application by
adding paragraph no. 38 in the writ
petition are wrong, hence, denied. In reply
thereto it is further submitted that the
Committee of Management has sent a letter
dated
20.11.2007
to
the
petitioner
intimating therein that meeting will be held
on 25.11.2007 to consider enquiry report,
therefore, it is directed to the petitioner be
present on that date. For kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court, Photostat Copy of the
letter dated 20.11.2007 sent by the
Manager of the Committee of Management
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the College to the Petitioner is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA
3 to this Affidavit.

It is further relevant to mention
that by this letter the Petitioner was also
informed that if any reply or objection
against the enquiry report if he wants to
produce then he can submit the same on
that date. Further in pursuance of the letter
dated 20.11.2007 a meeting was held on
25.11.2007 and the Petitioner himself was
present in that meeting and he has also put
his signature on the presence sheet. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court,
Ture/Photostat Copy of the presence sheet
dated 25.11.2007 is being filed herewith
and marked as Annexure CA-4 to this
Affidavit."
(emphasis supplied)

24.
As
referred
above,
the
petitioner was under probation, therefore, if
his
work
was
not
satisfactory,
the
Committee of Management can pass an
order not to extend his probation. The
allegation against the petitioner mainly was
that he was not discharging his duties as
Assistant Teacher, Vyayam diligently and
he was disturbing the normal working of
college. It has been stated that instead of
encouraging students of college concerned,
he took other students for a competition of
Kabaddi. The said allegation has not been
specifically denied on the basis of relevant
material and statements of witnesses
recorded
during
inquiry
including
statments.

25. As referred above, principles of
natural justice were substantially complied
with. It is well settled that termination of
services of a probationer under the Rules of
the
Employment
or
in
exercise
of
Contractual Right is neither per se
dismissal nor removal. However, if the
order visits the employee against his
character or integrity, it would be an order
by way of punishment irrespective of
whether
the
employee
was
a
mere
probationer or temporary. If he was
terminated without giving a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against his
termination and even in such matters if the
principles of natural justice were followed
and there was no deficiency of the
procedure, the writ Court would not
inclined to interfere.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances,
it is now safe to observe that since during
inquiry principles of natural justice were
followed and his reply was considered by
the inquiry committee and inquiry report
was submitted thereafter as well as show
cause notice was also served upon the
petitioner by the Manager of Committee of
Management and he also approved, no
irregularity was committed. The contents of
the counter affidavit and annexure annexed
therewith would be sufficient to show that
the petitioner has appeared in pursuance of
the show cause notice and has put signature
in the meeting dated 25.11.2007. Therefore,
the submission of counsel for petitioner
that at stage of show cause notice,
principles of natural justice were not
followed would be contrary to record.

27. In above referred circumstances
and taking note of allegations, which are
substantive that the petitioner was not
discharging his duties diligently and
standard of games were neither improved
nor students of college were encourgaged
to participate in competetion, the Court is
of view that impugned order whereby
probation period was not extended and
service was terminated does not require any
interference. The impugned order dated
26.11.2007
therefore
is
upheld.
3 All. Smt. Sushila Srivastava Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
219
28. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab
(1974) 2 SCC 831 that since principle of
natural justice was substantially complied
with and the petitioner was not able to
explain his mis-conduct and that his
services was not satisfactory, the law
proposed in Shamsher Sing (supra) was
also complied with that, even order of
termination may be punitive, however since
proper opportunity of hearing was granted,
therefore, no ground exists for interference.
(also see Swati Priyadarshini vs. the
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2024
INSC 620).

29. So far as the writ petition being
Writ-A No. 52910 of 2011 is concerned. In
the said petition, an interim order was
already passed in favour of selected
candidate i.e. petitioner no. 2 therein and
that there is merits in the arguments of
learned counsel for the said petitioner that
the posts are not subject wise and that there
are teachers for other subjects, as such
there was no bar to appoint another Teacher
for Vyayam. Therefore, there was no
illegality in the appointment of petitioner
no. 2 in the said petition. Therefore, the
interim order is made absolute.

30. With aforesaid observations,
writ petition i.e. Writ-A No. 63857 of 2007
(Sanjay Kumar Sengar vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) is dismissed and connected writ
petition i.e. Writ-A No. 52910 of 2011
(C/M K.L. Jain Inter College Sasni
Mahamaya Nagar & Anr. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.) is allowed. The impugned order
dated 29.06.2010 passed by Joint Director
of Education, Aligarh Region Aligarh is
hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ B No. 1261 of 2024

Smt. Sushila Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Swadha Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Lakkhi Chand Tyagi, Mohan Singh,
Shiv Shanker Tyagi

A. Civil Law -Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006Sections 210 & 212-Maintainability of
revision-Transfer
of
revenue
caseConcurrent
jurisdiction-The
petitioner
challenged an order dated 05.09.2024
passed by the Board of Revenue, which
had allowed a revision filed u/s 210 of
U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006,
against
a
transfer order u/s 212(2) of the same
code-Learned single Judge referred the
matter to a Larger Bench-The Division
Bench held that a revision petition is
maintainable against such order as section
210 provides revisional jurisdiction over
proceedings where no appeal lies, and an
order u/s 212(2) is not appealable under
the code-The bench further clarified that
the earlier view taken in Sharda Singh
Case
which
held
that
no
revisional
jurisdiction existed over such transfer
orders, does not lay down the correct lawThe reference was answered accordingly,
affirming the maintainability of revision in
such cases. (Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)