Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7360 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13962 of 2011 Petitioner :- Banarsi Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Tripathi,Sri. P.N. Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Omkar Nath Rai,Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. None present on behalf of petitioner. 2. Sri R.K.Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present. 3. This Court has passed following order on 14.3.2011: " Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation an order dated 13.1.2011 has been passed by the Director after making an inquiry holding that since the B.Ed degree of the petitioner is forged as such an F.I.R. be lodged against him and half of the entire salary paid to him during his career as a teacher may be recovered from him and remaining half from the committee of management. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid finding has been recorded on the basis of some letter dated 1.10.2010 written by the Controller of Examination of B.R. Ambedkar University, Bihar certifying that the earlier letter by which the degree of the petitioner was found to be valid was not written from the University. It has further been contended that the petitioner was never given any opportunity to rebut the said letter nor he was confronted with the same yet it was formed the basis of the finding recorded by the Director. Prima-facie from a perusal of the record, there appears to be force in the submission inasmuch as on an inquiry made by the District Inspector of Schools, the University informed that the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner is a valid degree and thus after receiving the letter dated 1.10.2010 the petitioner ought to have been confronted with the same and an explanation ought to have been sought from him which has not been done. Learned standing counsel representing the respondents no. 1 to 4 & 6 may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Issue notice to respondent no. 5 who may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Steps be taken by registered post within ten days. Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date. List for admission after service of notice on the respondent 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Director of Education shall remain stayed. This order, however, shall not entitle the petitioner for payment of pension or post retiral benefits." 4.Aforesaid interim order is still in currency. 5. Dispute in this case appears to be in regard to B.Ed Degree obtained by the petitioner and an inquiry appears to have been initiated against the petitioner after he attained the age of superannuation. 6. There are two contrary reports from the University. One in favour of the petitioner and another against him. However, it appears that contrary report was not confronted to the petitioner and not only the order of termination was passed, but order of recovery was also passed. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel refers the counter affidavit and supported the impugned order. 8. I have considered the above submissions and take note that the petitioner has admittedly worked till the age of superannuation and for that he has been paid salary also, therefore, in the interest of justice, no order can be passed for recovery of salary already paid to the petitioner. 9. So far as two contrary reports are concerned, admittedly adverse report was not confronted to the petitioner. Even the State respondents have not approached this Court to conduct an inquiry de-novo. Though no provision is brought on record under which such inquiry could be conducted. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances considering the facts of the present case as well as that this writ petition is of the year 2011, interim order as referred above is made absolute and accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. 11. It is clarified that this order will not be considered as a precedent. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad