Teacher's Journalism Side Gig Cleared: Allahabad HC Strikes Down Reversion Order

In a significant ruling for educators in Uttar Pradesh's basic education system, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench has quashed a 2009 order reverting a teacher from Assistant Teacher (Junior Basic School) to Assistant Teacher (Primary School) over allegations of moonlighting as a journalist. Justice Irshad Ali held that the U.P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956 do not apply to basic education teachers, and the disciplinary process violated principles of natural justice. The court directed the District Basic Education Officer to treat the petitioner as holding the higher post from suspension date until his retirement on March 31, 2020, with full salary arrears.

This decision echoes a prior observation from the court itself, as highlighted in legal reports: "No Bar On Appointment Of Teachers In UP Basic Education Institution For Involvement In Journalism: Allahabad High Court."

From Classroom to Newsroom: The Spark of Controversy

Suresh Bahadur Singh Kaushik was appointed Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School on February 18, 1987. Trouble brewed in 2009 when Rakesh Kumar Awasthi filed a complaint alleging Kaushik was working as a whole-time journalist for newspapers like Swatantra Bharat and Janmorch , supposedly favoring a political party. This complaint, linked to a submission to the Chief Election Commission against district officers, prompted the Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3) to suspend Kaushik on March 28, 2009, and form an inquiry committee.

Kaushik replied to inquiry letters and a show-cause notice dated May 11, 2009, denying misconduct and arguing the Conduct Rules of 1956 were inapplicable. Despite this, on October 30, 2009, he was reverted to a lower post, prompting Writ-A No. 7914 of 2009.

The core legal questions: Did the disciplinary authority follow natural justice by fixing a date for oral hearing and examining witnesses? Were the 1956 Conduct Rules applicable to basic education teachers governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981?

Petitioner's Defense: Forged Complaint, No Fair Hearing

Senior Counsel N.K. Seth, assisted by Anveksha Shukla, argued no formal charge sheet was issued, no oral hearing scheduled, and no opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Crucially, the complainant later filed an affidavit claiming his signature was forged—evidence that could have dismantled the case if an oral inquiry occurred.

They stressed government orders (Annexures RA1 & RA2) mandating complaint verification via affidavit from the complainant, which was ignored. Above all, the 1956 Rules don't bind basic education teachers, making the reversion illegal.

Respondents' Stand: Duty Impact Justifies Action

Counsel for the Basic Education Officer and Additional Standing Counsel for the State countered that hearings were adequately provided post show-cause reply. They dismissed the government orders as applying only to "Grade A" employees and justified action since Kaushik's journalism allegedly hampered teaching duties. No infirmities in the order, they claimed.

Precedents Seal the Fate: Rules Don't Apply, Inquiry Deficient

Justice Ali dissected the matter through key precedents. In Tufail Ahmad vs. State of U.P. (2023:AHC-LKO:33572), the court ruled the 1956 Conduct Rules irrelevant to basic education teachers under the 1981 Rules, quashing a termination for bigamy on similar grounds: "The Rules, 1956 have never been adopted to the teachers employed under the U.P. Basic Education and are solely governed by Rules, 1981."

Similarly, Qaji Jamil Ahemad vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. (2008 (26) LCD 1176) struck down a removal for lacking witness examination and oral inquiry: "It is no enquiry in the eyes of law as no date, time and place of enquiry was fixed... violation of the principle of natural justice."

Applying these, the HC found no oral hearing or witness cross-examination post show-cause reply, vitiating proceedings. The 1956 Rules' prohibition on journalism doesn't extend here, as Rule 12 of the 1981 Rules imposes no such bar.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • "After submission of reply to the show cause notice, no date, time or place was fixed for oral inquiry and cross examination of witnesses relied upon, therefore, the inquiry proceeding vitiates in law and is not sustainable in the eyes of law."
  • "The Rules of 1956 are not applicable to the teachers of U.P. Basic Education." (Echoing Tufail Ahmad )
  • "The impugned order dated 30.10.2009 is hereby quashed."

Victory with Retirement Twist: Arrears Ordered

The writ succeeded on April 9, 2026 (noting the future date in records). Since Kaushik retired upon superannuation on March 31, 2020, reinstatement wasn't feasible. Instead: "Direction is issued to the respondent - District Basic Education Officer to treat the petitioner as Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School w.e.f. 28.03.2009 till date of retirement with a further direction to ensure payment of salary and arrears... forthwith."

This ruling reinforces protections for basic education teachers against extraneous conduct rules, ensuring fair inquiries, and could shield educators pursuing journalism from undue reversion—provided processes are followed meticulously.