Allahabad High Court

ABHISHEK PANDEY AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

Holding

The court quashed the impugned removal orders and directed a fresh verification, holding that the petitioners are not to be treated as removed and their salary claim must be reconsidered.

Summary

The petitioners, three assistant teachers, challenged two orders dated 29‑07‑2025 that removed them from service and halted their salary. They argued that the orders were based on an alleged fraud finding that conflicted with earlier departmental inquiries and approvals. The court noted that the validity of the appointments must be decided by the competent authority after a full and lawful examination of the record, and that the respondents could not rely on a later adverse view without proper verification. Relying on the precedent set in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra), the court quashed the impugned orders, directed a fresh verification, and held that the petitioners should not be deemed removed pending a final reasoned decision. Their claim for salary for periods they actually served is to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutes.

Issues considered

Whether the impugned orders removing the assistant teachers are valid in view of earlier departmental inquiries and approvals.
Whether the competent authority must conduct a fresh, lawful verification before confirming removal on grounds of alleged fraud.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary for the period they continued to perform duties pending final decision.
Whether the court can quash the orders based on the precedent set in Rajneesh Upadhyay case.

Subjects

appointment
departmental inquiry
removal from service
salary entitlement
writ petition
administrative law
fraud allegation
competent authority

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 19167 of 2025

Abhishek Pandey And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi,
Sujan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harindra Prasad

Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish
Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents, Mr. Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.4&5 and perused the records.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the two impugned
orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh / respondent
no. 1. The petitioners have further sought a writ, order or direction
restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful functioning
as Assistant Teachers in their respective institutions and for a consequential
direction to the respondents to ensure payment of their salary as and when
the same falls due.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the
present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment and order
dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court in Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14
others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Writ-A No. 11862 of 2025.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this
Court finds that the question of ultimate validity of the appointment may be
determined by the competent authority upon a lawful and comprehensive
examination of the entire record and the respondents be not permitted to
proceed upon an assumption of fraud merely because an administrative
report subsequently takes a view different from the view earlier taken by the
competent authorities.
WRIA No. 19167 of 2025
2

5. In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly having regard to the
earlier departmental inquiry, the subsequent government action thereon, the
criminal proceedings, the prolonged continuance of the petitioners pursuant
to government's approvals, the conflicting stands emerging from the
respondents themselves, and the disputed contemporaneous official record,
the ends of justice would not be served in affirming the impugned action or
by conclusively foreclosing the State from undertaking a lawful verification.

6. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court
proceeds to finally decide the matter at this stage.

7. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the observations and directions
made in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra). The impugned orders dated
29.07.2026 are quashed, insofar as adverse conclusions are recorded therein
against the petitioners. The competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed
afresh in accordance with the directions contained in Rajneesh Upadhyay
(supra). Until such exercise is completed and a final reasoned decision is
taken in accordance with law, the petitioners shall not be treated as having
been removed from service merely on the strength of the impugned orders.
Their claim for salary for the period during which they have actually
discharged their duties shall be reconsidered by the competent authority in
accordance with the applicable statutory and financial framework,
uninfluenced by the findings which have been set aside in Rajneesh
Upadhyay (supra).

8. No order as to costs.

September 29, 2026
Jitendra/-
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…