MOHD. NAIM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 16th January, 2007 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur whereby punishment has been imposed on the petitioner by stopping one increment on permanent basis with a further warning to the petitioner on account of the charges levelled against him. The writ petition was preferred and entertained on 1st May, 2007 and the respondents had accepted notice and were granted time to file counter affidavit. None of the respondents including the Basic Education Shiksha Parishad has filed any counter affidavit till date. A notice in writing has been served on learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad about this case being taken up today. In spite of the notice none appears on behalf of the Parishad. I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondents who contends that the order has been passed after a full scale inquiry. I have perused the impugned order as also the averments contained in the writ petition which have not been controverted by filing any counter affidavit. The petitioner contends that the inquiry had earlier been instituted and satisfied with the reply of the petitioner a recommendation was made for dropping the inquiry. A copy of the same dated 15th April, 2005 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the said inquiry report and ordered a fresh inquiry which was conducted. On such fresh recommendation by the second Inquiry Officer, the impugned order dated 16th January, 2007 has been passed.