Allahabad High Court
KUMARI SHARMILAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court held that the transfer order was not punitive, no malafide intent was established, and the writ petition was not maintainable, leading to its dismissal.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumari Sharmila, a teacher, challenged a punitive transfer and suspension order dated 17 September 2025 issued by the District Basic Education Officer, alleging that it was based on a complaint of forged signatures and was passed without a proper enquiry, violating principles of natural justice. She sought certiorari to quash the order and mandamus directing reinstatement to her posting at Composite School, Jhansi, along with payment of salary. The Court examined the forensic report on the alleged forged signatures, the lack of a documented enquiry, and the respondent’s contention that the order was based on the petitioner’s misconduct, not on any complaint, and that the petitioner had an appeal pending. Relying on precedents (Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, Sabiha Sultan v. State of U.P., Dharvendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P.) the Court held that the transfer was not punitive in the legal sense and that the petition was not maintainable after the merits had been decided. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no interference in the transfer order.
Issues considered
- The transfer and suspension order dated 17‑09‑2025 is punitive and violative of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to certiorari and mandamus to set aside the order and be reinstated.
- The maintainability of the writ petition in view of a pending appeal against the same order.
- Whether the order was passed with malafide intent or on the basis of a valid complaint.
Subjects
- punitive transfer
- natural justice
- certiorari
- mandamus
- forged signature
- administrative enquiry
- malafide
- education law
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15407 of 2025
Kumari Sharmila
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shyam Sundar Pal, Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Mr. V.K. Upadhyay, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf
of respondent no.5 in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Ref: Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.6 of 2026
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the amendment application
with the prayer to insert the prayer clause in the following manner to issue
an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
speaking order dated 12.09.2025 passed by District Basic Education
Officer, Chandauli, as prayer no.'(i)-a' in the writ petition.
3. No objection has been raised by Mr. Bansh Gopal Mishra, learned
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel
for the respondent-BSA, Mr. Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for
respondent no.4, Mr. V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.5
as well as Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State. This amendment application is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the
necessary amendment in the prayer clause within two weeks.
Ref: Order on Writ Petition
5. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bansh
Gopal Mishra, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Rajnish
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
2
Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. V.K. Upadhyay,
learned counsel for respondent no.5 as well as Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
6. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing and setting aside the part and
portion of the order impugned dated 17.09.2025 far as the
punitive transfer of the petitioner passed by respondent
no. 3 (Annexure NO.1) writ petition. to the
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, respondents authorities directing to the permit
the petitioner to join her services at the present place
of posting i.e. Composit School Jhansi, Sakaldiha,
Chandauli, and also pay the salary month to month as and
when it becomes due, within stipulated period of time as
may specified by this Hon'ble Court."
7. Consequently by means of amendment application, which is now
treated as part of record of the writ petition, the order dated 12.09.2025
has also been challenged.
8. The matter was argued on several dates and on 14.10.2025, the
following order was passed:
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has made complaint dated 28.12.2024 in respect
of forged signature of a teacher who was not present in
the institution by other teachers who were present in the
institution. On the said complaint, action has been taken
by the Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha, District
Chandauli vide his letter dated 31.12.2024. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has no knowledge about any enquiry which has
been conducted on that very complaint and as per the law
and principles of natural justice a person who has made
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
3
complaint must be given opportunity of hearing in the
enquiry proceedings.
2. Thus, it appears that no enquiry has been conducted.
If it is conducted in accordance with law, the District
Basic Education Officer, Chandauli, is directed to submit
his report through the Block Education Officer,
Shakaldiha Chandauli.
3. The Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha District
Chandauli, shall appear before this Court along with the
entire documents making clear position about the
complaint so that the Court may decide the present writ
petition whether the order has been passed against the
petitioner with malafide intention or not.
4. The Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha Chandauli,
shall appear before this Court alongwith entire documents
in three sets of photocopy so that the report may be
verified by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the District Basic Education
Officer is directed to provide the complete instruction
in respect of enquiry conducted on the complaint of the
petitioner alongwith the forensic report of signature
that is essential for enquiry as per the complaint made
by the petitioner. If no such enquiry has been conducted,
the same shall be clearly mentioned in the instruction.
6. Put up this case as fresh on 17.10.2025, at 12.00
O'clock.
7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel is directed to send a
copy of this order alongwith a letter indicating the
entire facts so that further direction may be given to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, to
conduct enquiry and also submit his report in respect of
forensic/handwriting examination as well as the visit of
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
4
Smt. Anita Chauhan of that day for the end of justice."
9. On 24.02.2026, the following order was passed:
"Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3 of 2025
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rishi Singh, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the
impleadment application is allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner to implead Smt.
Anita Chauhan as respondent no.4 and Smt. Poonam Mishra
as respondent no. 5 in the array of parties during the
course of day.
Writ Petition
4. Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the
State has placed before this Court the
Forensic/Handwriting Examination Report in compliance of
the order of this Court dated 26.11.2025. The same is
taken on record. A copy of the same has been handed over
to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent nos. 4
and 5 returnable at an early date.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to take
steps to serve the copy of the petition along with all
relevant documents including copy of the
Forensic/Handwriting Examination Report to the newly
impleaded respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
directions issued by this Court on 14.10.2025 wherein the
learned Chief Standing Counsel was directed to send a
copy of the order along with a letter indicating the
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
5
entire facts so that further direction may be given to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, to
conduct enquiry and also submit his report in respect of
forensic/handwriting examination as well as the visit of
Smt. Anita Chauhan of that day for the end of justice.
The order passed by this Court is quoted herein below:
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
made complaint dated 28.12.2024 in respect of forged signature of a
teacher who was not present in the institution by other teachers who
were present in the institution. On the said complaint, action has been
taken by the Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha, District Chandauli
vide his letter dated 31.12.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner has no knowledge about any enquiry
which has been conducted on that very complaint and as per the law and
principles of natural justice a person who has made complaint must be
given opportunity of hearing in the enquiry proceedings.
2. Thus, it appears that no enquiry has been conducted. If it is
conducted in accordance with law, the District Basic Education Officer,
Chandauli, is directed to submit his report through the Block Education
Officer, Shakaldiha Chandauli.
3. The Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha District Chandauli, shall
appear before this Court along with the entire documents making clear
position about the complaint so that the Court may decide the present
writ petition whether the order has been passed against the petitioner
with malafide intention or not.
4. The Block Education Officer, Shakaldiha Chandauli, shall appear
before this Court along with entire documents in three sets of
photocopy so that the report may be verified by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the District Basic Education Officer is directed
to provide the complete instruction in respect of enquiry conducted on
the complaint of the petitioner along with the forensic report of
signature that is essential for enquiry as per the complaint made by
the petitioner. If no such enquiry has been conducted, the same shall
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
6
be clearly mentioned in the instruction.
6. Put up this case as fresh on 17.10.2025, at 12.00 O'clock.
7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel is directed to send a copy of this
order along with a letter indicating the entire facts so that further
direction may be given to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli, to conduct enquiry and also submit his report in respect of
forensic/handwriting examination as well as the visit of Smt. Anita
Chauhan of that day for the end of justice."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Police
Authorities, Chandauli has conducted enquiry and recorded
statements of various persons and collected evidence.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the State prays for and
is granted four week's time to file counter affidavit
bringing on record all the documents, statements and the
enquiry report having prepared by the Police Officer.
10. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
11. List this case as fresh on 15.4.2026."
10. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
punishment order is punitive in nature as instead of punishing the teachers
against whom complaint was made, the petitioner has been initially
suspended and now the punishment order dated 17.09.2025 has been
passed against him, therefore, the same is arbitrary and suffers from mala
fide.
11. While further arguing the matter, he submits that a complaint was
made regarding forged signatures being made by Sapna Jaiswal and
Rekha Rai of an Assistant Teacher, namely, Anita Chauhan marking her
presence, despite her being absent. The report which has been placed on
record in compliance of orders passed by this Court also goes to show that
on 21.12.2024, signatures as made of Anita Chauhan are forged. He
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
7
further submits that though, the complaint mentioned about absence of
Anita Chauhan and forged signatures being made for marking presence on
19.12.2024 and 21.12.2024, only one day's signature i.e. of 21.12.2024
has been mentioned in the signature verification report. He further
contends that annoyed by the complaint as made by the petitioner, the
concerned teachers, namely, Poonam Mishra (Headmistress) and Anita
Chauhan (Assistant Teacher) moved a complaint and as a result of the
same, initially the petitioner was placed under suspension and now the
punishment order has been passed, therefore, the order is unreasonable,
without application of mind and suffers from biases. He further submits
that the Anudeshaks, namely, Ajmat Fatma and Kumari Rubi, who had
supported the allegations made by the petitioner against Anita Chauhan
have also been punished in the form of giving a warning letter.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
has been transferred as a punishment on the basis of complaint of
Assistant Teachers and other staff members, which cannot be done in
view of the law laid down in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union Of
India, reported in 2009 (2) SCC 592. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also contends that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the
guidelines laid down in the Government Order dated 21.10.2025.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that an appeal has
also been filed against the punishment order, which is pending. He further
submits that though, in the complaint made by Anita Chauhan and
Poonam Mishra, there are allegations against the petitioner as well as two
Anudeshaks, namely, Ajmat Fatma and Kumari Rubi but only the
petitioner has been punished, which is in violation of the settled principles
of law.
14. Learned counsel for respondents submit that the allegations as
mentioned in the suspension order, charge sheet as well as the punishment
order do not mention about any such complaint made by any of the
persons, namely Poonam Mishra, Anita Chauhan, Sapna Jaiswal or Rekha
Rai, on the basis of which, the impugned order has been passed. It is the
manner of functioning, the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner with
the other teaching and non-teaching staff, which has been taken into
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
8
consideration while passing the punishment order.
15. They further contends that the petitioner though, has pleaded mala
fide against the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, however, he has not been
impleaded by name and there are no specific averments in the petition,
proving any biases or mala fide. The aforesaid fact regarding
misbehaviour has also come in the report as placed before this Court and
which has been noted by this Court in earlier detailed orders, which have
been passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
16. Learned counsel for respondents submit that the punishment/transfer
order has not been passed based on any complaint, as no such thing has
been mentioned in the order impugned. They also contend that the
transfer is now seen in view of the latest Government Order dated
14.11.2025, wherein the pupil-teacher ratio has to be seen. Even
otherwise, this transfer order has been argued to be in form of
punishment, therefore, the Government Order as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the
present case.
17. Learned counsel for respondents have also relied upon judgments as
passed by this Court in Writ - A No. - 9618 of 2025 (Sabiha Sultan @
Sabiha Sultan Saifi vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) as decided on
24.07.2025 and Writ - A No. - 9632 of 2025 (Dharvendra Pal Singh vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others) as decided on 24.07.2025, wherein other
legal objections, which may or may not have been taken by learned
counsel for the petitioner, have also been considered and the petition has
been dismissed, therefore, in view of the observations made by the Court
in Sabiha Sultan @ Sabiha Sultan Saifi (supra) and Dharvendra Pal
Singh (supra), the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Even
otherwise, once the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing an
appeal, which is still pending, the present petition challenging the same
termination order is liable to be dismissed.
18. They further submit that now since the petition has been decided on
merits, the petitioner cannot turn around to seek a direction for decision of
the aforesaid appeal, which stands infructuous after decision passed by
WRIA No. 15407 of 2025
9
this Court in the present writ petition, wherein termination order has been
challenged.
19. This Court is of the opinion that the petition cannot be entertained on
the ground that the transfer order is punitive, as there is no political
motive or any such complaint, on the basis of which the petitioner has
been transferred, as well as the impugned order also does not mention
about any complaint on the basis of which the petitioner has been
transferred.
20. In view of above, no interference is called for and the writ petition is
dismissed accordingly.
21. Needless to say that as the report has already been placed before this
Court with respect to Headmistress, namely, Poonam Mishra and
Assistant Teacher, namely, Anita Chauhan as well as Anudeshaks, the
concerned District Basic Education Officer is always at liberty to take
appropriate decision relying upon the report as placed before this Court, if
any.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
April 23, 2026
K.N.
Digitally signed by :-
KALP NATH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…