HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4344 of 2021 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manu Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Shukla, Shashi Kant Srivastava, Shrikant Srivastava, Yatindra Chheda Lal Gangwar .....Applicant(s) Chandrakesh Singh, District Basic Education And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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. May 7, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 4344 of 2021 7 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad