Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66268 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15594 of 2014 Petitioner :- Mohammad Javed Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sheikh Moazzam Inam, advocate holding brief of Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder for State. 2. It is petitioner's consistent case, as referred in writ petition, that he was regularly working as Class-IV employee at concerned Madarsa, however, due to some friction between employee and employer/management, petitioner was not allowed to mark his attendance. 3. Petitioner has suffered with an inquiry that since he remained absent for a long period and despite notices including show cause notice along with charge sheet, he has not submitted any reply. Even on publication in a newspaper, he has not turned up to attend the proceedings, therefore, vide impugned order dated 02.12.2013, petitioner's services were terminated. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is a reference in impugned order of letter dated 29.11.2013 wherein he has reiterated same stand and for reference, relevant part of it is quoted below :- “ अतत ननटटस सस0- 53 टदनननक 18.11.2013 कक सनथ ससलग जजच आखयन कक आरनप सस0-1 सक 5 तक सभभ आरनपप कन पनथर खणडन करतन हह जन टक टनरनधनर और असतय हह कयप टक पनथर टनरनतर मदरसन मम उपससथत हनकर अपनभ सकवनयम दक रहन हह । परनतत पधनननचनयर शभ इसनतजनर अहमद कक टनदरश पर पनथर कक हसतनकर उपससथटत पसजजकन पर नहह करवनयक जन रहक हह जजसकक ससचनन समय समय पर उचच अजधकनररयप कन दभ जनतभ रहभ हह । इसकक सनथ हभ आपसक पनथर पतनत पनथरनन करतन हह टक पनथर कन उपरनक पत टदनननक 12.08.2013 दनरन चनहभ गयभ पतप कक पटतयनस उपलबध करननक कन कष करम जजससक टक आरनप पत कक आरनपप ” कन गलत जसद करनक मम सहनयतन टमल सकक । 5. Learned counsel further submits that aforesaid reply was cursorily ignored in impugned order on the ground being vague. 6. Learned counsel also submits that there was a requirement that impugned order be approved by Registrar, U.P. Arabi and Farsi Madarsa Education Board, Lucknow, however, no such approval is placed on record. 7. Learned Brief Holder has supported impugned order that since petitioner remained absent for a long period and has not submitted reply to show reasons for long absence, therefore, impugned order was passed and a copy of same was forwarded to concerned Registrar. 8. I have considered above submissions and perused the record. 9. Petitioner has declared his age as 32 years when this writ petition was filed in 2014, therefore, presently he may be around 43-44 years, therefore, he has still many years to serve. 10. In above circumstances, Court is of view that since petitioner has submitted a reply dated 29.11.2013 which was mentioned in impugned order also, however, explanation of it was neither considered nor referred as well as there is no communication from Registrar concerned whether order was approved or not. 11. Considering above circumstances and in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 02.12.2013 is set aside and an opportunity is granted to petitioner to submit a detailed reply to show cause notice within 2 weeks from today so that it may be considered in accordance with law. It is also directed that disciplinary inquiry will commence afresh from the stage of show cause notice and concerned Authority is directed to conclude the same within a short period. 12. It is made clear that it will not construe that petitioner is allowed to join service since it will depend upon outcome of fresh decision. 13. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations/directions. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad