Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21213 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1330 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lokendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal,Rajneesh Sharma,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel and Sri Rajneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 placed Instructions received from the office of District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition challenging the orders dated 20.11.2020 as well as order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur 4. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question on 30.12.2015. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined his duties and started getting his salary. Due to bad mental condition of the petitioner, he was not able to attend the Institution from 05.02.2020 to 17.05.2022 and in such circumstances, the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur vide notice dated 30.04.2022 asked the petitioner to join his duties at the place of his posting. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted affidavit explaining the reasons for his absence and he joined his duties again in the Institution in question and minor punishment, i.e., adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 18.05.2022. 5. It is argued by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that after the aforesaid punishment order was passed, the petitioner was permitted to join his duties and the salary was paid to him till August, 2023, thereafter wholly illegally the salary of the petitioner has been stopped and now a fresh order dated 30.10.2024 has been passed against the petitioner terminating his services. The reason assigned by the respondent No.3 in the aforesaid order, was that earlier the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 20.11.2020 and in spite of the same, he was permitted to work, therefore, the order dated 18.05.2022 passed in favour of the petitioner has been recalled by the respondent No.3 by the order dated 30.10.2024 and a direction was also issued to recover the salary received by the petitioner. It is argued that the order dated 20.11.2020 by which the services of the petitioner was terminated was never served upon the petitioner and nor the same has been informed to the petitioner by the authorities at any point of time. It is further argued that the after medical fitness certificate submitted by the petitioner he was permitted to join his duties and thereafter the order dated 18.05.2022 was passed by the respondent No.3 awarding adverse entry for his absence for a period of 2 years, 3 months and 12 days. It is further argued that in case, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 20.11.2020, there was no occasion to the respondent No.3 to pass order dated 18.05.2022 permitting the petitioner to join his duties. It is argued that the order dated 20.11.2020 as well as 30.10.2024 was passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the procedure has been prescribed under U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 read with U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 for termination of service of permanent teacher but no such procedure has been adopted by the respondent No.3 before passing the order impugned, hence the same are liable to be set aside. 6. It is admitted by Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the order impugned has been passed in without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in complete violation of principles of natural justice and admitted that before passing such orders, reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided to the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur has passed both the orders, i.e., 20.11.2020 as well as 30.10.2024 without following the procedure prescribed in law and also in complete violation of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid orders are also non-speaking and have been passed without application of judicial mind. 9. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that both the orders, i.e., 20.11.2020 as well as 30.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. It is made clear that the respondents are free to pass fresh order, if so advice. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad