HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 17049 of 2019 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. From a perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the petitioner, who claims to be a validly appointed Assistant Teacher, no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned orders dated 03.05.2019, 09.05.2019 and 25.04.2019. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply and after consideration, it was found unsatisfactory and she was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2019, but no proceedings under the Rules, 1999 has been conducted. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 have been unable to controvert the averments made in the show cause notice, but submit that the proceedings under the Rules, 1999 were not adopted as the degree of Graduation that had been given by the petitioner, was itself found to be fake and thus, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. The said order was also based on the order, which was passed by the respondent No.1, with regard to the fake documents annexed by various teachers including the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, it emerges that while the petitioner was working Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pushpila Bisht, Abhishek Misra, Pushpila Bisht, Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi, Rajesh Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : CSC, Ajay Kumar, Ran Vijay Singh Vimal Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru Spl. Secy.Deptt Of Basic Edu. Lkoandors. .....Respondent(s) as Headmistress, he has been issued with a show cause notice,whereby he was required to submit a reply within three days failing which, action under the Rules, 1999. Despite the petitioner having submitted his reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory, instead of proceeding under the Rules, 1999, the respondents have straightaway dismissed the petitioner from service, vide order dated 09.05.2019. In turn, the said order has also been passed considering an order dated 20.07.2020 that had been passed by the respondent No.1 whereby certain persons including the petitioner were found to have been working on the basis of fake documents. 6. Once the respondents have themselves professed in the show cause notice that in case the petitioner failed to submit his reply within three days or his reply would be found unsatisfactory, then proceedings under Rules, 1999 shall be taken, then there was no occasion for the respondents to have straightaway dismissed him from service, without proceeding under the Rules, 1999 more particularly when the petitioner had submitted his reply and obviously the same having been found to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the modus adopted by the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service, without professing what had been indicated in the show cause notice, clearly cannot be countenanced the law. Incidentally the show cause notice still continues to stand and has neither been cancelled or withdrawn. 7. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The orders impugned dated 03.05.2019, 09.05.2019 and 25.04.2019 and consequential order dated 23.12.2020, copy of which is annexure nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the petition respectively, is quashed. 8. Consequences to follow. 9. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner, in accordance with law. December 4, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 17049 of 2019 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench