U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.r. 16 and 19(3) – Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – The appellant was the in-charge District Basic Education Officer, where he issued appointment letters to 521 candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers – The State placed appellant under suspension and directed a disciplinary/departmental enquiry under the Rules, 1999 – The charge-sheet was filed wherein it was alleged that the appointments of Assistant Teachers made by the appellant were irregular and in violation of rr.16 and 19(3) of the Rules, 1981 – After the series of litigations, the order of the removal from the service passed by the Governor dated 21.4.2008 was stayed and appellant was directed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings – All the appointments made were declared void-ab-initio – The enquiry was conducted without affording any opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence through production of witnesses – The disciplinary authority granted a personal hearing to the appellant and found all charges proved against the appellant and passed an order of removal from service on 27.6.2017 – The appellant challenged the order dated 27.6.2017 by way of writ petition – The High Court concluded that since the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice, the order dated 27.6.2017 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the discipline authority to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage of charge-sheet – On appeal, held: A perusal of Service Rules, 1981 makes it clear that the appellant as the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) – The allegations of corruption and appointments being made without complying with the 1981 Rules were made against the appellant – The plea of appellant that appointments were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court and under the directions of senior functionaries, are required to be considered in the enquiry – Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, which would be conducted from the stage of the chargesheet, upheld. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A perusal of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 reveals that the appellant as the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinabove. It is the case of the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state, which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as mentioned in the appellant’s reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second show cause notice. The plea of the appellant that the appointments were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries, would require to be considered in the enquiry. [Para 16] [1126 A-C]
2. This Court upholds the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, which would be conducted from the stage of the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority will conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after giving a full opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who will be allowed to produce both oral and documentary evidence. [Para 17][1126 C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.