Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6821 of 2009 Petitioner :- Jitendra Madhukar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thu. Secretry Basic Education,U.P. Civil Petitioner Counsel :- S.V.Singh,Dr.R.K. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar Tewari Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Dr. R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh
Kumar Tewari for the opposite party no. 3.
Stay was granted on 30.10.09. The operative portion of the order is as below:-
“Accordingly, till next date of listing the impugned order dated 22.9.2009
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed and petitioner shall be
permitted to discharge duty with due salary with liberty to respondents to
proceed afresh with due compliance of principle of natural justice.”
Today the case had come for extension of the stay order.
Counter- affidavit has been filed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari. Main
argument of Sri Tewari is that the petition was filed by concealment of facts.
It was stated that no opportunity was given to the petitioner in the inquiry, by
which the service of the petitioner was terminated. In fact, before filing of the
writ petition, an inquiry on the behest of the petitioner, himself, was
conducted, in which documents placed by the petitioner were read out and
considered. A copy of such inquiry report has been annexed with the counter-
affidavit, which has been served on Dr. R.K. Srivastava yesterday.
Two things are apparent; firstly that the inquiry had been conducted before
filing of the wit petition. There is no mention of the inquiry in the writ
petition. It can safely be assumed that the Court while passing of the interim
order was not aware about the inquiry conducted in this case. Dr. R.K.
Srivastava has drawn the attention of this Court towards para-9 and 10 of the
writ petition, wherein he says that he has disclosed the facts of inquiry being
conducted. On perusal of such paragraph, the Court could not find any such
averment where it can be said that the inquiry has been completed. Dr. R.K.
Srivastava further states that in the interim order, it was directed that afresh
inquiry may be conducted but that inquiry has not been conducted. Hence, he
is entitled for extension of the interim order. The Court had granted the
interim order because at the time of filing of the writ petition, the fact that the
inquiry was held, was deliberately concealed from the Court. This Court feels
reluctant in extending the interim order today. However, it is also noticed that
the opposite parties have not conducted any fresh inquiry in compliance of the
Court’s order. Whatever inquiry has been made, was made prior to the order
passed by this Court and while the Court had directed afresh inquiry, afresh
inquiry should be completed expeditiously say within a period of fifteen days
from the date a certified copy of this order is available to the opposite parties.
In this case, the petitioner as well as all the other necessary party shall be
given proper opportunity to adduce the evidence and to file documents
necessary in the case and further adduce oral evidence, if necessary and for
cross-examination. Dr. R.K. Srivastava is also allowed to file rejoinder-
affidavit, if any, in case he wants to challenge the inquiry by filing rejoinder-
affidavit.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
Sadiq