ANIL KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed this writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 30 -4 -2003 passed by the Joint Director of Education, by which the representation of the petitioners for the payment of salary was rejected. The petitioners in the writ petition alleged that the salary was illegally been paid to respondent Nos. 5 and 6. This writ petition was presented in the High Court on 9 -7 -2003 which came up for admission before the Court on 11 -7 -2003 on which date the Court granted one month's time to the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, the Secretary, Secondary Education Government of U.P., Lucknow, Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. The aforesaid petition came up for admission again on 20 -9 -2004, i.e., after 14 months, and on that date, the Court granted one month's further time to the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the said respondents to file a counter -affidavit. The petition came up for admission on 18 -1 -2005 and, again four weeks' further time was granted to the respondents to file a counter -affidavit. Inspite of time being granted on three occasions, the counter -affidavit was not filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Consequently, on 2 -3 -2005 this Court granted three weeks' and no more time to the respondents to file a counter -affidavit, failing which, the Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'DIOS') to appear in person on 1 -4 -2005. From the order -sheet, it transpires that the case was taken up on 15 -4 -2005, on which date the Court found, that neither the counter -affidavit was filed nor the DIOS was present and accordingly the Court directed the matter to be listed again on 27 -4 -2005, on which date, the DIOS Ballia was again directed to appear in person and explain under what circumstances the counter -affidavit was not been field. Inspite of this order, the DIOS did not appear in person before the Court on 27 -4 -2005. On 25 -8 -2005, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to send the information to the DIOS to appear in person on 1 -9 -2005. On 1 -9 -2005 the DIOS, Ballia again did not appear in person nor any counter -affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was filed. Consequently, this Court directed the disciplinary authority to take action against the DIOS by suspending him forthwith.

(2.) ON 6 -9 -2005, Sri Ram Lotan, the DIOS, Ballia, respondent No. 3 filed an application for the recall of the order dated 1 -9 -2005. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the DIOS submitted that the orders of the Court dated 2 -3 -2005, 15 -4 -2005 and 25 -8 -2005 were never communicated in the office of the DIOS and therefore, the said order could not be complied by him. Further, the order of the Court dated 1 -9 -2005 was made known to him through a news item published in the news paper on 2 -9 -2005. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the DIOS submitted that the order of the Court dated 25 -8 -2005 was received in the office of the District Magistrate, Ballia on 27 -8 -2005 and that the said order dated 25 -8 -2005 was received in the office of the DIOS, Ballia on 29 -8 -2005 by a peon, Sri Ram Janam, working in the officer of the DIOS. The DIOS further stated that the entire staff of the office of the DIOS was busy in the election duty of the Gram Panchayat on 28th and 29th August, 2005. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the DIOS stated that from 29 -8 -2005 to 1 -9 -2005, he was at Allahabad, in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and had he knew about the order of the Court dated 25 -8 -2005, he would have appeared on 1 -9 -2005 before the Court. In view of the aforesaid, the DIOS submitted that on account of the non -availability of the information about the orders of the Court, he could not comply with the said orders nor could appear before the Court.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid averments made in the two affidavits, it is clear, that the authorities are passing the buck on someone else. Everyone is denying the receipt of the information sent from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. The DIOS in his affidavit submitted, that the order of this Court was never communicated to him. The Secretary, Secondary Education, respondent No. 1 also stated that no order was communicated to him and that the Fax message sent to the Joint Director was also not received by him. This reflects the state of affairs of the State Government. Even through the respondents deny receiving the 3 Fax messages sent from the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, the respondents however, are silent as to whether they were communicated with the orders dated 11 -7 -2003, 20 -9 -2004 and 18 -1 -2005 of the Court or not.