RAMESH SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1117 · Decided: 03-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
RAMESH SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2020)
MARCH 03, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.r. 16
and 19(3) – Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999 – The appellant was the in-charge District Basic
Education Officer, where he issued appointment letters to 521
candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers – The State placed
appellant under suspension and directed a disciplinary/
departmental enquiry under the Rules, 1999 – The charge-sheet
was filed wherein it was alleged that the appointments of Assistant
Teachers made by the appellant were irregular and in violation of
rr.16 and 19(3) of the Rules, 1981 – After the series of litigations,
the order of the removal from the service passed by the Governor
dated 21.4.2008 was stayed and appellant was directed to co-
operate with the disciplinary proceedings – All the appointments
made were declared void-ab-initio – The enquiry was conducted
without affording any opportunity of hearing and adducing
evidence through production of witnesses – The disciplinary
authority granted a personal hearing to the appellant and found
all charges proved against the appellant and passed an order of
removal from service on 27.6.2017 – The appellant challenged the
order dated 27.6.2017 by way of writ petition – The High Court
concluded that since the enquiry was held in violation of the
principles of natural justice, the order dated 27.6.2017 was quashed
and the matter was remitted to the discipline authority to hold the
enquiry afresh from the stage of charge-sheet – On appeal, held: A
perusal of Service Rules, 1981 makes it clear that the appellant as
the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority
was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of the
recommendations of the Selection committee as contemplated by
Rules 16 and 19(3) – The allegations of corruption and appointments
being made without complying with the 1981 Rules were made against
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1117
1117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
the appellant – The plea of appellant that appointments were made
in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court and
under the directions of senior functionaries, are required to be
considered in the enquiry – Therefore, the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary
authority, which would be conducted from the stage of the charge-
sheet, upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A perusal of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 reveals that the appellant as the
District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority
was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of
recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated
by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinabove. It is the case of
the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments
without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of
corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state,
which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by
the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these
appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as
mentioned in the appellant’s reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second
show cause notice. The plea of the appellant that the appointments
were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the
High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries,
would require to be considered in the enquiry. [Para 16]
[1126 A-C]
2. This Court upholds the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority,
which would be conducted from the stage of the charge sheet.
The disciplinary authority will conduct the enquiry in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, after giving a full opportunity
of hearing to the appellant, who will be allowed to produce both
oral and documentary evidence. [Para 17][1126 C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A. No. 31098 of 2017.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
 Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Imtiaz Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed
Zargham, Farheen Fatima, Ahmed Faraz (for M/S. Equity Lex
Associates), Advs. for the Appellant.
A.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv., K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.