Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93918 (ALL)

GOPAL KRISHNA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/13510/2025 · 2025-09-16

Manju Rani Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13510 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order dated 17.01.2023 as also the circular letter dated 26.07.2023 issued by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, UP, Prayagraj. (iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher -at Primary School – Bharwalia, Development Block Campiarganj, Gorakhpur and to pay the petitioner his full monthly salary on the said post, regularly, every month and also to command the respondent to disburse to the petitioner all arrears of its outstanding salary. (iv) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondent from taking any action on the basis of the order dated 13.08.2025. (v) a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble -court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 3. Pressing the first prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.08.2025, whereby punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner, is a non-speaking and vague order, having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C. Gopal Krishna .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for respondent-BSA, on the basis of instructions, has provided a manual copy of the aforesaid order, which is also not clear. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 is set aside at this stage. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.4, District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, with a direction to give a notice along with an enquiry report, if any, to the petitioner and after giving him opportunity of hearing on the aforesaid, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of six weeks from today, on production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 6. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the fresh order, if so passed by concerned District Basic Education Officer. September 17, 2025 Rahul. WRIA No. 13510 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad