Disciplinary proceedings against employees must strictly adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an oral inquiry with an opportunity for cross-examination. Furthermore, administrative conduct rules intended for state government officials cannot be applied to specific educational department employees unless explicitly adopted.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Anveksha Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for Basic Education Officer - respondent No.3 and Sri Anil Kumar Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel for respondent - State.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2 contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was granted appointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School on 18.02.1987. An alleged complaint was lodged against him by Sri Rakesh Kumar Awasthi in regard to working of the petitioner as Journalist in the news paper. On the basis of complaint, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 28.03.2009.

4. The inquiry committee issued a letter to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted reply to the same on 02.04.2009. The petitioner was issued show cause notice on 11.05.2009 and he submitted reply in pursuance thereof. In reply, he stated that provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956 are not applicable to the employees of Basic Education Department. An order was passed on 30.10.2009, whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Teacher, Junior Basic School to the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School.

5. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner in regard to charges levelled against him. He submitted that no date, time and place has been fixed for conducting oral hearing and to examine the complainant in the matter, therefore, his submission is that the entire proceeding vitiated with the vices of principles of natural justice.

6. He further submitted that the person who lodged the alleged complaint against the petitioner has given application supported by affidavit that the application does not bear his own signature and is a forged one. In case the complainant would have called for oral hearing, he would have submitted application along with affidavit denying the complaint lodged against the petitioner.

7. He next submitted that in pursuance to Government Order issued, which is annexed as Annexure RA1 & RA2, it has been provided that the compliant lodged against an employee should be verified by calling the person who has lodged the complaint and an affidavit should also be taken from him. He submitted that in the present case no such exercise was done by the disciplinary authority and in a very cursory manner the order was passed. He also submitted that the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1956 are not applicable to the employees of Basic Education Department, therefore, the order impugned is illegal and is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon following judgments:

A) Tufail Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others ; Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC-LKO:33572

B) Qaji Jamil Ahemad Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow and others; 2008 (26) LCD 1176.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the Government Order referred in Annexure 1 & 2 pertains to Grade A Employees, t