VED PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VED Prakash Mishra son of late Nand Kishore Mishra is before this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kushi Nagar (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), wherein order of dispensation of his service has been passed and the directives have been issued for recovery of the amount in question.

(2.) BACKGROUND of the case, as is reflected from the record, is that the petitioner's father, Nand Kishore Mishra had been performing and discharging duties as Head Master at primary school Naurangiya and he was to attain the age of superannuation on 30.06.1992. Petitioner claims that before his father could attain the age of superannuation, he died in harness on 27.06.1992. Petitioner claimed compassionate appointment by moving application in this regard and the Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools submitted report on 08.03.1994 mentioning therein that the petitioner's father had died in harness and no one from the family of the deceased employee had been offered appointment, as such it was recommended to offer appointment to the petitioner. On the said recommendation dated 08.03.1994 being made, petitioner was offered appointment as assistant teacher.

(3.) PETITIONER submits that once again issue was sought to be raised that the petitioner had procured appointment by practicing fraud and large scale manipulations are there. On the said complaint being made, notice dated 23.11.2010 had been issued mentioning therein that complaint had been received against the petitioner that date of death of petitioner's father has been changed and fictitious appointment has been procured and qua the same enquiry has been got conducted and it was found that the date of death of petitioner's father is 17.07.1992 and not 27.06.1992, and accordingly, petitioner should submit his reply within three days. Thereafter, another letter was sent on 02.12.2010 informing the petitioner that the petitioner had not at all put forth his point of view before the District Basic Education Officer, and accordingly, petitioner was again given three days' time to put forth his point of view. Petitioner submits that thereafter he submitted his reply along with enclosures on 03.12.2010, and thereafter order has been passed withholding salary of the petitioner with effect from 23.12.2010 and charge sheet dated 27.01.2011 has been issued to the petitioner. After receiving the said charge sheet, petitioner once again submitted his reply on 28.01.2011, and thereafter, order impugned has been passed, wherein the District Basic Education Officer has proceeded to mention that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory and it has been found that manipulations and manoeuvring have been done in procuring appointment on compassionate basis and accordingly appointment of the petitioner is bad. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has rushed to this Court. 4. On presentation of writ petition, this Court proceeded to pass following order on 23.05.2011: