The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order to stop the salary of three teachers on false complaint and directed the Secondary Education Secretary to take criminal action against the complainant.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Smt Durgesh Sharma and 2 Others.
The petitioners have set up a case that respondent, a minority institution, has issued an advertisement to fill up three substantive vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers LT grade. The petitioners have applied for the said post and were duly appointed and in pursuance of their respective appointment letters, they joined service on 1st August 1998.
Further case is that the Committee of Management of the concerned institution submitted the documents to concerned DIOS for approval on 7th August 1998.
It is further case of the petitioners that when concerned DIOS has not passed any specific order in terms of the relevant provisions, their approval was deemed to be approved and when their salaries were not paid, they constrained to approach the Court by way of filing Writ Petition seeking following reliefs :-
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioners’ selection dated 19.07.1998 as deemed approved and pay salary to the petitioners with effect from 08.09.1998 (petitioner no 1 and 3) and with effect from 14.09.1998 (petitioner no 2) regularly month to month including arrears of salary;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider and approve the selection of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers LT Grade in Anglo Bengali Girls Inter College, Agra which selections have been submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools, Agra vide letters dated 07.08.1998 and pay salary to the petitioners accordingly;
(iii) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) award costs of the writ petition to the petitioners.”
Senior Advocate Anil Bhushan assisted by Abhishek Bhushan, Advocate, for petitioners submitted that during pendency of said case, firstly appointment of petitioners were approved by the DIOS by an order dated 18th May 1999 and thereafter they were declared permanent by separate orders dated 19th May 2000, and, thereafter they were promoted also.
Senior Advocate has further submitted that in above circumstances, since grievance of the petitioners were considered that approval was granted and they were also confirmed, without any legal impediment, therefore, they filed an application for withdrawal of their case and accordingly by an order dated 30th July 2003, above referred writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Senior Advocate has further submitted that thereafter, petitioners served peacefully and got regular salaries and were promoted also in terms of relevant provisions. However in the year 2023 i.e after 2 decades, one Bhupendra Singh has filed a complaint in regard to appointment of one of the petitioners on which cognizance was taken, however it was rejected vide order dated 21st November 2023 that such complaint was baseless. It was also noted that an earlier attempt by the same complainant had remained unsuccessful.
Senior Advocate has argued that despite the complaint of such a person being rejected, still again on basis of the same complaint, an enquiry was set up at the level of Joint Director of Education by a communication dated 15th April 2023 addressed to DIOS concerned against all petitioners. During proceedings, notice were issued and petitioners submitted their respective replies and ultimately concerned DIOS by an order dated 31st December 2024 passed an order whereby salary of petitioners were stopped on the ground that approval of petitioner’s appointment was subject to outcome of above referred petition which was dismissed as withdrawn and since interim order was vacated by an order dated 30th July 2003, therefore, order of approval itself becomes inoperative and their salary was got stopped.
Senior Advocate has further submitted that not only petitioners’ service was put on stake on a vague complaint by one Bhupendra Singh but wrong interpretation was taken of the order passed in earlier writ petition filed by petitioners. He has referred to the contents of the order dated 18th May 1999 whereby during pendency of writ petition, petitioners’ services were approved that it was unconditional and order of withdrawal of the petition would have no adverse effect on such order.
The Court observed that,
This is another case where on basis of a complaint made by a complainant (in present case one Bhupendra Singh), an enquiry was initiated despite earlier complaint by the same person was rejected and an absolutely erroneous interpretation was taken of the order passed by the Court while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn filed by the petitioners, without looking into its contents. The complainant is not a party before the Court.
I have carefully perused the order dated 18th May 1999 which was passed during pendency of the petition filed by petitioners. Said order was passed on the basis of consideration by the Finance Section on the basis of documents available and only thereafter, their services were approved. Said order does not indicate that it was subject to the outcome of the petition filed by petitioners. Till date, the order dated 18th May 1999 has not been challenged by any of the parties including the complainant. Order dated 18th May 1999 was further acted upon and petitioners were granted promotion also. There is no reference in the impugned order that the petitioners were not qualified or their selection process was de-hors of relevant Rules.
Only reason assigned in the impugned order was that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and interim order was vacated, however as referred above, order of approval was based on documents available and the decision was taken on the basis of material and not only on basis of interim order passed by the Court i.e for grant of salary.
In above circumstances, the Court opined that the impugned order cannot survive. It appears that complainant has a good repo with the officers in the Education Department that despite earlier complaint was rejected still an inquiry was initiated after two decades and impugned order was passed.
In above circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned order not only, but the court directed that Secretary, Secondary Education, will initiate criminal proceeding against complainant who has filed bogus application against the petitioners which not only led an illegal impugned order but the petitioners were constrained to approach the Court.
“The complainant is not before the Court, however, it is directed that respondent – 1 will issue notice to him to seek explanation as to why not a cost of Rs 1,00,000 be imposed on him as his complaint has not only invited impugned order but has troubled the petitioners who were peacefully discharging their duties for last more than two decades,” the Court ordered.