Govt. Must Be Sensitive While Imposing Severe Punishment Of Dismissal Pursuant To Disciplinary Action: Allahabad High Court [Read Order]

Notably, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Siddhartha Varma was hearing an appeal preferred to question the correctness of the Judgment dated 25th August 2020 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No.5210 of 2020.

Facts of the Case

The respondent-petitioner entered in the service of the appellant-respondent (Board Of Basic Education) being appointed as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 4th January, 2006.

While in-service, he was also promoted to the post of Head Master of a Junior High School. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 7th December, 2019 and was subjected to disciplinary action under a charge sheet dated 13th January, 2020.

In the charge sheet aforesaid, it was alleged that in the year 1984 the delinquent employee appeared in an examination of Purva Madhyama held by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and in the same year he also obtained high school certificate from U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education.

After holding an inquiry, by an order dated 11th June, 2020, the Basic Education Officer imposed a penalty of dismissal upon the respondent-petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, a petition for writ was filed that came to be accepted under the Judgment (Single Bench Judgment).

In appeal, the argument advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-respondent was that the respondent petitioner could have not availed benefit of two educational certificates while he obtained higher education on basis of one specific certificate of high school issued by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education.

Court's Analysis

The Dvision Bench observed that,

"Learned Single Bench also held that before imposing the severe punishment, no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent-petitioner and that is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice."

Further, the Court said that,

"We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the respondent petitioner could have obtained two qualification simultaneously and the respondent-petitioner as such possessed requisite qualification to hold the post of Assistant Teacher as well as the further promotional post."

Thus, the Division Bench did not find that any error was committed by the Single Bench that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Lastly, while dismissing the appeal, the Court observed,

"It is strange that in the instant matter the authority competent despite knowing the fact that the respondent-petitioner is having the requisite qualification to hold the post chose to impose the penalty of dismissal."

With the observations as above, the appeal stood dismissed accordingly.