CHHEDA LAL GANGWARversusCHANDRAKESH SINGH, DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4344 of 2021

Chheda Lal Gangwar
                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Chandrakesh Singh, District Basic Education And
Another                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                              Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Manu Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Shukla, Shashi Kant Srivastava,
                                Shrikant Srivastava, Yatindra

Court No. - 9
                HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Amit Kumar, Principal/Deputy Director of Education, District Institute
of Education and Training, Chhibramau, Kannauj, earlier BSA of District
Pilibhit is present in the Court today, who is identified by Sri Yatindra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party.

2. A personal affidavit of the officer has been filed today, which is taken
on record.

3. The present contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for not-complying the order of the writ
Court dated 11.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.6003 of 2021 which is
as under under:-

     "Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
     The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.6.2020,
     passed by District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit whereby orders have
     been passed stopping the salary to the petitioner mainly on the ground
     that certain complaints of serious nature were received in the office of the
     District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit.
     It is argued that since 29.6.2020, in pursuance of the said order, the
     salary is not being paid to the petitioner.
     This Court, vide order dated 09.07.2021, had called upon the respondents
     to seek instructions as to how the said order dated 29.6.2020 came to be
                                                                CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                                    2


     passed.
     Counter affidavit has been filed today stating that some other person
     impersonating himself as Chheda Lal Gangwar, (petitioner herein) is
     doing the service and reports in that regard have been received by the
     respondents which led to the passing of the order dated 29.6.2020.
     The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an earlier enquiry
     conducted in respect of similar allegations against the petitioner which
     resulted in passing of the order dated 23.3.2005 with directions for
     payment of salary to the petitioner. He thus argues that once the enquiry
     has been concluded, no occasion survives for passing of the order dated
     29.6.2020. He also argues that even otherwise in terms of Scheme of the
     Rules governing the services of the petitioner, the order adverse to the
     petitioner can be passed only in accordance with law as laid down in the
     Rules being the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salary of
     Teachers and other Employees) Act 1978. He argues that the procedures
     prescribed in the Rules have not been followed and thus the order dated
     29.6.2020 is without any authority of law.
     The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that on
     account of certain complaints, the petitioner was called upon and hearing
     was accorded to him on 21.7.2021 and the respondents are in the process
     of taking further steps for enquiry.
     Considering the submissions made at the Bar and perusal of the order
     dated 29.6.2020, it clear that the same is without any powers conferred
     upon the respondent no. 2 and further the said order is neither in the
     nature of suspension order nor in the nature of punishment order. The
     said order is bereft of any reasoning whatsoever, besides being in
     violation of principles of natural justice.
     Accordingly, the order dated 29.6.2020 is set aside with directions for
     payment of salary to the petitioner forthwith, however, the respondents
     will be at liberty to initiate and proceed in the manner prescribed under
     law against the petitioner, if so advised.
     The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said direction.
     Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall
     be treated as certified copy of this order. "

4. Subsequent to passing of the order of the writ Court, an enquiry was
                                                                 CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                                    3


initiated against the applicant and his services were terminated on
22.09.2021. The said order was challenged in Writ-A No.14744 of 2021
which was partly allowed on 12.01.2022 and following order was passed:-

     "The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the order dated
     30.10.1999 passed by the District Basic Education Officer. The petitioner
     joined his services on the very same date. On 29.6.2020, an order was
     passed stopping the salary of the petitioner with immediate effect on the
     basis of certain complaint made by one Pooran Lal. The petitioner
     approached the High Court by means of Writ-A No.6003 of 2021 and this
     Court on 11.8.2021 quashed the order dated 29.6.2020 by which the
     salary of the petitioner was stopped. It was, however, provided that the
     respondents in that writ petition would be at liberty to proceed in
     accordance with law. Thereafter, when the order dated 22.9.2021 was
     passed by the District Basic Education Officer by which the services of
     the petitioner were terminated, the instant writ petition has been filed.
     A perusal of the order dated 22.9.2021 shows that when a complaint was
     made by one Pooran Lal that the petitioner was not in fact Chheda Lal
     but was Arun Kumar, some fact-finding enquiry was undergone and after
     concluding that the petitioner was not Chheda Lal but was Arun Kumar,
     his services were terminated on 22.9.2021.
     Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before any order of
     termination was passed, an enquiry as was contemplated under Rule 7 of
     the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999
     (hereinafter referred to as the "1999 Rules") had to be undergone and in
     the absence of the enquiry, it cannot be said that the order was passed
     after complying the principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned
     counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court
     reported in 2021 (1) ADJ 539 : Rajesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Nagar
     Panchayat, Jewar & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
     as per Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules, the procedure as was prescribed for the
     imposition of major penalty ought to have been adhered to.
     Today, Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, who
     appeared through Video Conferencing, has read out the instructions and
     clearly stated that no enquiry viz.-a-viz. the petitioner was undergone
     under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules.
     Under such circumstances, the order dated 22.9.2021 is quashed and set-
                                                                CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                                   4


     aside. The respondents may under the provisions of U.P. Government
     Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 go through a proper enquiry
     and thereafter come to an appropriate conclusion. Even though the order
     dated 22.9.2021 has been set-aside, the petitioner shall not be allowed to
     join till such time as the enquiry is completed. The enquiry, after due
     notice to the petitioner, shall be completed within a period of three
     months. However, till the time the enquiry is completed, no coercive
     action shall be taken against the petitioner.
     With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. "

5. The writ Court while setting aside the order dated 22.09.2021 had
observed that the applicant would not be allowed to join till the enquiry is
completed. After the enquiry was completed, services of the applicant
were terminated from the date of initial appointment dated 10.08.2022.

6. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the applicant before
the Secretary, UP Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj and on 17.02.2026,
the Secretary had dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. In between,
on 23.11.2021, the opposite party had passed an order for recovery of the
salary paid to the applicant. Thereafter, another order was passed by the
District Basic Education Officer on 11.03.2024 adjusting the amount of
salary paid between 30.06.2020 to 22.09.2021. Both these orders were
challenged by the applicant through Writ-A No.5635 of 2024 in which the
interim order was granted by the writ Court on 15.04.2024 which is as
under:-

     "Heard Mr. Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
     Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Mr. Sashi Kant Srivastava for
     respondent nos. 2 and 3.
     The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated
     11.3.2024 and 23.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 2.
     Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination order dated
     22.9.2021 was passed terminating the petitioner from services, which was
     assailed by the petitioner before this Court in Writ A No. 14744 of 2021
     wherein this Court vide order dated 12.1.2022 has quashed the
     termination order dated 22.9.2021 and also directed to conclude the
     enquiry within three months. He submits that in pursuance of the order of
                                                               CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                                  5


    this Court dated 12.1.2022, fresh enquiry was started against the
    petitioner and the petitioner was again terminated from service vide
    order dated 10.8.2022, thereafter the petitioner has preferred a
    departmental appeal before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, on
    9.1.2023 in which neither any interim order has been passed nor the same
    has been decided till date.
    He further submits that on the one hand the appeal is still pending but on
    the other hand the recovery proceedings has been initiated in pursuance
    of the order dated 22.9.2021, which is bad.
    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot
    dispute the said fact.
    In view of above, the matter requires consideration.
    Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Chief
    Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent nos. - 2 and 3 has been
    accepted by Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava.
    Admit.
    All the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
    Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.
    List thereafter.
    Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the
    impugned orders dated 11.3.2024 and 23.11.2021 passed by respondent
    no. 2, shall be kept in abeyance. "

7. The writ petition was thereafter finally decided on 30.04.2025 and
following order was passed:-

    "1.Heard Sri Manu Saxena, Radhamani Saxena on behalf of petitioner
    and Sri Shashi Kant Srivastava for respondent nos.2 and 3.
    2. This Court has passed following order on 15.4.2024:
    "Heard Mr. Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
    Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Mr. Sashi Kant Srivastava for
    respondent nos. 2 and 3.
    The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated
    11.3.2024 and 23.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 2.
    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination order dated
    22.9.2021 was passed terminating the petitioner from services, which was
    assailed by the petitioner before this Court in Writ A No. 14744 of 2021
                                                           CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                              6


wherein this Court vide order dated 12.1.2022 has quashed the
termination order dated 22.9.2021 and also directed to conclude the
enquiry within three months. He submits that in pursuance of the order of
this Court dated 12.1.2022, fresh enquiry was started against the
petitioner and the petitioner was again terminated from service vide
order dated 10.8.2022, thereafter the petitioner has preferred a
departmental appeal before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, on
9.1.2023 in which neither any interim order has been passed nor the same
has been decided till date.
He further submits that on the one hand the appeal is still pending but on
the other hand the recovery proceedings has been initiated in pursuance
of the order dated 22.9.2021, which is bad.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 cannot
dispute the said fact.
In view of above, the matter requires consideration.
Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Chief Standing
Counsel and on behalf of respondent nos. - 2 and 3 has been accepted by
Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava.
Admit.
All the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the
impugned orders dated 11.3.2024 and 23.11.2021 passed by respondent
no. 2, shall be kept in abeyance."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to his
instructions appeal has still not been decided.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks further time to file counter
affidavit, however, he assures the Court that if the appeal is still pending
it shall be decided within a short period.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
following directions:
(a) Appeal if is still pending, it shall be decided within a period of four
weeks.
(b) So far as interim order is concerned, it shall remain in currency till
the disposal of appeal.
                                                                                                   CAPL No. 4344 of 2021
                                                                        7


                                          6. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the
                                          case.
                                          7. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps. "

                                    8. From perusal of the order of the writ Court deciding the writ petition
                                    finally, it is clear that the appeal was to be decided within four weeks and
                                    the interim order was to remain in operation till the disposal of the appeal.

                                    9. The opposite party has clearly stated in his affidavit filed today that the
                                    appeal has been decided by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, on
                                    17.02.2026, copy of which, has been appended as Annexure 13.

                                    10. As the order passed by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad is not
                                    under challenge, nor any writ petition is pending consideration nor any
                                    interim order is operating in favour of the applicant, no case for contempt
                                    is made out.

                                    11. Contempt application is misconceived and the same stands dismissed.



                                                                                          (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    SK Goswami




Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad