# Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 747
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7914 of 2009
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-bahadur-singh-kaushik-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-54473
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
747
(2026) 4 ILRA 747
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 7914 of 2009

Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of punishment order passed without fixing date, time and place for oral inquiry and cross
examination of witnesses.
(2) Applicability of U.P. Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956 to the teachers of U.P. Basic Education.
(3) Entitlement of the delinquent employee to be restored on his post on declaration of punishment order
illegal, though he was retired during the pendency of writ petition filed against punishment order.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Punishment - Reversion from the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic
School to the same post in Primary School - Inquiry proceeding - Charge of working as
Journalist in news paper was leveled - Reply to show cause notice was submitted - However, no
date, time or place was fixed for oral inquiry and cross examination of witnesses - Effect -
Applicability of the Rules, 1956 also felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: After submission of reply to the show cause notice, no date, time or place was fixed for oral inquiry and
cross examination of witnesses relied upon, therefore, the inquiry proceeding vitiates in law and is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. [Para 14]
Held further: Entire order is based upon premise that the Rules, 1956 as applicable to U.P. Government
Servants would apply to the teachers under U.P. Basic Education also. The same prohibits involvement in
Journalism as involvement of the petitioner in journalism was guilty of misconduct - Rules of 1956 are not
applicable to the teachers of U.P. Basic Education. In addition there to the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1981 does
not prohibit the grant of employment to the person who is involved in journalism. Even otherwise, on the said
basis, the impugned order was quashed by the Court. [15 and 16]
(B) Service law - The delinquent employee was retired during the pendency of writ petition filed
against the punishment order - Subsequently, the punishment order was declared illegal -
Entitlement of employee to be restored on his original post: (E-1)
Held: The petitioner cannot be restored as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School. The only remedy
available to him is to provide consequential benefits of the post in case he was to be retained as Assistant
Teacher, Junior Basic School . [Para 19]

Case Law Cited
Tufail Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC-LKO:33572; Qaji Jamil Ahemad vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.,
Lucknow and others, 2008 (26) LCD 1176 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956; Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules,
1981.
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Reversion, Complaint, Journalist, Suspension, Charge sheet, Principle of natural justice, Oral hearing,
Disciplinary authority, Infirmity, Illegality, Inquiry Committee, Oral enquiry, Cross examination, Show cause
notice, Misconduct, Guilty of misconduct, Examination of witness, Age of superannuation, Consequential
benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 30.10.2009 passed by respondent No. 2

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: N.K. Seth (Sr. Adv.), Anveksha Shukla, Ravindra Pratap Singh, Ashish Chaturvedi.
Advs. for the Respondents: D. R. Misra, Rahul Shukla, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Anil Kumar Chaubey (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Anveksha Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for Basic Education Officer -
respondent No.3 and Sri Anil Kumar Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel for respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 30.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic
School to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted appointment as Assistant
Teacher in Junior Basic School on 18.02.1987. An alleged complaint was lodged against him by Sri
Rakesh Kumar Awasthi in regard to working of the petitioner as Journalist in the news paper. On
the basis of complaint, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 28.03.2009.

4. The inquiry committee issued a letter to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply to
the same on 02.04.2009. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 11.05.2009 and he
submitted reply in pursuance thereof. In reply, he stated that provisions of U.P. Government
Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956 are not applicable to the employees of Basic Education Department.
An order was passed on 30.10.2009, whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of
Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

5. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that no charge sheet was served
upon the petitioner in regard to charges levelled against him. He submitted that no date, time and
place has been fixed for conducting oral hearing and to examine the complainant in the matter,
therefore, his submission is that the entire proceeding vitiated with the vices of principles of natural
justice.

6. He further submitted that the person who lodged the alleged complaint against the petitioner
has given application supported by affidavit that the application does not bear his own signature
and is a forged one. In case the complainant would have called for oral hearing, he would have
submitted application along with affidavit denying the complaint lodged against the petitioner.
4 All. Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
749

7. He next submitted that in pursuance to Government Order issued, which is annexed as
Annexure RA1 & RA2, it has been provided that the compliant lodged against an employee should
be verified by calling the person who has lodged the complaint and an affidavit should also be
taken from him. He submitted that in the present case no such exercise was done by the disciplinary
authority and in a very cursory manner the order was passed. He also submitted that the provisions
of U.P. Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956 are not applicable to the employees of Basic
Education Department, therefore, the order impugned is illegal and is liable to be quashed. In
support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

A) Tufail Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others; Neutral Citation No.2023:AHCLKO:33572

B) Qaji Jamil Ahemad Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow and others; 2008 (26) LCD 1176.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the Government
Order referred in Annexure 1 & 2 pertains to Grade A Employees, therefore, the same is not
applicable. He further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner
while passing the impugned order.

9. He next submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality
and is just and valid. He submitted that the petitioner is discharging duty as whole time Journalist,
therefore, the teaching work in the institution has affected, therefore, proceeding was initiated
against him for taking disciplinary action.

10. Learned Additional CSC for respondent - State also adopted the same arguments, as
advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.3.

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record as well as law reports cited by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

12. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion of the judgments relied
upon are being quoted below:

A) Tufail Ahmad (Supra):

"5. The said order has been passed merely on the ground that in the suit filed by
Merajunnisan certain admissions were made as such the action of the respondent was contrary to
the Government Services Conduct Rules which prohibits bigamy and after considering the material
on record, the order of termination came to be passed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the services of the petitioner are
governed under Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 (hereinafter
referred to as "The Rules, 1981"). He argues that in terms of the said Rules, 1981, the appointment
to be granted to the aspirant mandates the clarification of marital status, in fact the discretion is
conferred upon the Board to grant the appointment to a person irrespective of his second marriage.

7. He thus argues that under the Rules, 1981, there is no bar on bigamy, he further
argues that reliance on the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to as "The Rules, 1956") is wholly unwarranted inasmuch as the said Rules, 1956 have
never been adopted to the teachers employed under the U.P. Basic Education and are
solely governed by Rules, 1981. He further argues that even the factum of marriage of the
petitioner was not established in view of the fact that the suit filed was dismissed in
default.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has tried to justify
the order, however, he could not produce any material to demonstrate as to how the Rules,
1956 applicable to the U.P. Government Servants are applied to the teachers working with
the U.P. Basic Education under the Rules, 1981.

9. The entire order is based upon the premise that the Rules, 1956 as applicable
to U.P. Government Servants would apply to the teachers under U.P. Basic Education also
and as the same prohibits bigamy, the petitioner was guilty of misconduct is faulty as the
Rules, 1956 are not applicable to the teachers of U.P. Basic Education. In addition there
to the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1981 does not prohibit the grant of employment to the person
who has married twice, the order is clearly based upon misapplication of rules. Even
otherwise, the factum of second marriage was disputed and not established in any Court of
law as such the order dated 25.7.2019, which is Annexure -1 to the petition is clearly
unsustainable and is quashed."

B) Qaji Jamil Ahemad (Supra):

"9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed before us the record
pertaining to the enquiry proceedings. The record reveals that after submission of the
charge-sheet, a reply was submitted by the petitioner and no witnesses were examined by
the department to prove the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. In the absence of any
evidence being led by the department, the charges cannot be said to be proved or
established. It also cannot be said that the delinquent officer associated in the enquiry
proceedings. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in violation of the principle
of natural justice. It is settled law that after a charge-sheet is given to a delinquent
employee, an oral enquiry is a must-whether the employee requests for it or not.

10. In the instant case, no witnesses were examined by the department to prove
the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. We are of the view that it is no enquiry in the
eyes of law as no date, time and place of enquiry was fixed by the enquiry officer. The
impugned removal order and the order passed by the appellate authority are legally not
sustainable. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 22.9.1995, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal,
Lucknow is hereby set aside and the impugned removal order dated 3.11.1989 and the
order passed by the appellate authority dated 15.10.1990 are hereby quashed with all
consequential benefits. A liberty is granted to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry
in accordance with law from the stage the reply was submitted by the petitioner to the
charge-sheet. The consequential benefits will be subject to the outcome of fresh enquiry.
Since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, the opposite parties
shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously."
4 All. Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
751

13. The first question to be taken into consideration is that whether Rakesh Kumar Awasthi
made a complaint to the Chief Election Commission of India against some officer of District
including District Magistrate, District Forest Officer and Station House Officer of Police Station
Safderganj, District Barabanki and in the said complaint allegation was also made against the
petitioner to the effect that he has set up some teachers in certain news paper in order to favour a
particular political party. Name of the petitioner was also mentioned in one of the teachers working
for news papers Swatantra Bharat and Janmorch and in pursuance thereof, respondent No.3
constituted an inquiry committee consisting of Deputy Basic Education Officer and the petitioner
was suspended pending inquiry against him.

14. After submission of reply to the show cause notice, no date, time or place was fixed for
oral inquiry and cross examination of witnesses relied upon, therefore, the inquiry proceeding
vitiates in law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

15. In regard to applicability of Rules of 1956, reliance has been placed in the case of Tufail
Ahmad (Supra). On its perusal, it is transpired that entire order is based upon premise that the
Rules, 1956 as applicable to U.P. Government Servants would apply to the teachers under U.P.
Basic Education also. The same prohibits involvement in Journalism as involvement of the
petitioner in journalism was guilty of misconduct.

16. In the said judgment, it has been held that Rules of 1956 are not applicable to the teachers
of U.P. Basic Education. In addition there to the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1981 does not prohibit the
grant of employment to the person who is involved in journalism. Even otherwise, on the said
basis, the impugned order was quashed by the Court.

17. In the case of Qaji Jamil Ahemad (Supra), it has been held that due to non examination
of witnesses to prove charges the Court was of the opinion that it is no inquiry in the eyes of law as
no date, time and place of inquiry was fixed by the inquiry officer, therefore, the impugned order of
removal was set aside holding that it is violation of principles of natural justice.

18. While dictating the judgment, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on
attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.03.2020.

19. In view of fact came while dictation of judgment, the petitioner cannot be restored as
Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School. The only remedy available to him is to provide
consequential benefits of the post in case he was to be retained as Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic
School, therefore, on the facts and circumstances and reasons recorded above, the impugned order
dated 30.10.2009 is hereby quashed.

20. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

21. However, direction is issued to the respondent - District Basic Education Officer to treat
the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School w.e.f. 28.03.2009 till date of retirement
with a further direction to ensure payment of salary and arrears of the post till 31.03.2020,
forthwith.
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 752
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 15328 of 2025

Veena Menon ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of not providing opportunity of hearing before passing the orders of withholding the salary of the
petitioner, who obtained the appointment relying upon a forged and fabricated document.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Withholding of salary - Assistant Teacher - Petitioner got appointment in the
year 1989 - On asking to upload the documents of educational qualification on the Portal, it
came into light that the petitioner's result of High School was showing as 'withheld' on the
ground of non-submission of Transfer Certificate of Class IX - Petitioner's application for
issuance of Class X marksheet and certificate was rejected on the ground of alleged nonsubmission of documents - Consequently, the salary was also withheld subject to production of
original High School Marksheet and Certificate - Validity challenged - In enquiry, it came into
light that the petitioner had produced a handwritten High School marksheet and a fabricated
Transfer Certificate, on the strength of which, she secured admission in Class XII - Effect - Plea
of violation of principle of natural justice was taken - Permissibility: (E-1)
Held: The petitioner has sought to rely upon a forged and fabricated document, thereby rendering her claim
wholly untenable - Upon a comprehensive inquiry into the matter, it was conclusively found that the
petitioner had indulged in acts of forgery in securing appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher - The
conclusions drawn in the inquiry report leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner had systematically relied
upon forged and fictitious documents to secure academic progression and consequential benefits, thereby
vitiating the very foundation of her claim. [Para 55, 63 and 72]
Further held: Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. In cases where an action is founded upon fraud, the
requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is considerably diluted, and in appropriate cases, even
dispensed with - Rejection of the petitioner's claim for issuance of the High School certificate and marksheet
cannot be faulted. Consequential actions, including the withholding of salary, have also been initiated by the
competent authority in accordance with law - The impugned orders cannot be faulted on the ground urged by
the petitioner, and the challenge so raised is devoid of merit. [Para 74, 77 and 113]

Case Law Cited
State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334; Writ C No. 19955 of 2017, Markandey Kumar Yadav vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.; W. A. No. 3075 of 2021, All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society vs. State of
Tamil Nadu; Writ A No. 13670 of 2020, Manjul Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 24.08.2021;
Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748; Writ A No. 19634 of 2025, Garima Singh vs. State of U.P.
& Others; Writ A No. 11846 of 2025, Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on
19.08.2025; Writ A No. 20140 of 2023, Kamlesh Kumar Nirankari vs. State of U.P. & Others decided on