Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38610 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 70028 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Parveen Jahan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafeer Ahmad,Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,Nafees Ahmad Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2009. 2. The impugned order dated 12.11.2009, passed by District Basic Education Officer, Rampur was under challenge. 3. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Shivendra Singh Bhadoria, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that by impugned order, contract of the petitioner as 'Shiksha Mitra' was cancelled on ground that he has certified a forged list of student beneficiary of Mid-day Meal Scheme. This Court has not granted interim order and the matter was simply adjourned either on the illness of the counsel for the petitioner or otherwise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 refers the paragraph nos. 6 to 8 of the counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinafter: "6. That in reply to averment made in paras 5 to 7 of the writ petition a serious complaint regarding Mid-day-Meal was made to the District Magistrate, Rampur. In view of the complaint the District Magistrate directed an inquiry in pursuance to which respondent no.4 constituted a committee which included Sri Dinesh Pratap, District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Sri Kamal Kishore, Asst. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Rampur and Sri Arvesh Kumar, Asst. Basic Education Officer, Suar, Rampur. The committee made an on the spot inquiry in presence of the petitioner and others including villagers. The committee perused the records, asked for explanations from the concerned one and submitted its report on 29.10.09 which is self speaking and has been annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The contents of the report are quite contrary to the contents of the paras under reply as regards the petitioner. 7. That averments made in paras 8 and 9 of the writ petition are not admittes as stated. It is stated that the report submitted by the committee clearly found the petitioner guilty of verifying the fake distribution of mid- day- meal. 8 That in reply to the averments made in paras 10 to 16 are of the writ petition is stated that the petitioner had verified the distribution of mid- day-meal which was not actually distributed. The petitioner, alongwith others, in complicity with the Pradhan had usurpted the money meant for the distribution of mid-day-meal. Appropriate action had been taken against all found guilty. The petitioner being responsible for distribution of the mid-day-meal and verifying the same which has never been distributed, has acted in gross violation of the duty entrusted to him. Though not necessary yet he had all opportunity to have his say in the matter. It appears in the face of the speaking record he had he did not make any submission. The action was taken against the petitioner in terms of his engagement. Rest of the contents contained in the paras under reply are argumentative in nature which shall be dealt with at the time of hearing." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 further refers the rejoinder affidavit and reply to these paragraphs are mentioned in paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 which are reproduced hereinafter: "5. That as stated the contents of paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit are not admitted and as such are denied. The inquiry report dated 29.10.2009 clearly shows that the action was recommended against village Pradhan and secretary and further was illegally recommended against one Ahsan and the petitioner, though the Shiksha Mitra have no concern with the distribution of Mid-day Meal, the responsibility of distribution of Mid-day meal lies on head master and village Pradhan, however, further in reply the contents of paragraph no. 5 and 7 are of the writ petition are reiterated and further stated that petitioner has no knowledge of the spot inquiry as mentioned nor was present nor was issued any notice regarding the spot inquiry. 6. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit are incorrect and are denied, as no verification was done. Verification was incorrect and against the record. In reply further the contents of paragraph no.8 or 9 of the writ petition are reiterated. 7. That the contents of paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit are incorrect. In reply it is submitted that the shiksha Mitra has no concern with the distribution of the Midday meal, it was the duty and responsibility is of Head Master and village Pradhan. Since the petitioner is not duty bound nor responsible for distribution of Mid-day meal, Hence the charges leveled against petitioners for verifying and distribution of mid- day meal are incorrect. In the similar circumstances one Ahsan khan filed a writ petition no. 23291/2010 Mohd Ahsan Vs. State of U.P. and in pursuance of this Hon'ble Court order 27.4.2010 he filed a representation and his representation was allowed and he was reinstreated as Shiksha Mitra. The services of said Mohd. Ahsan Khan were terminated by the same order. A true copy of reinstating order of Ahsan Khan as a Shiksha Mitra is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no.RA-1 to this affidavit." 7. Considering the aforesaid submission that the petitioner was employed on contract basis, however, he has committed forgery. A report was submitted and the stand of the petitioner was also considered. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. No substantial material is brought on record by the petitioner to contradict the findings written in the impugned order. Therefore, the Court is of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Mohini Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad