Supreme Court Orders Fresh Disciplinary Inquiry in UP Basic Education Appointment Scam

The case of Ramesh Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. involves serious allegations of irregularities in the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh’s Basic Education Department. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, a former Basic Education Officer, were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the penalty imposed was justified.

The controversy arose when Ramesh Singh, while serving as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in District Basti and Gorakhpur, was accused of making unauthorized appointments of over 521 teachers without adhering to the prescribed rules and procedures. The appointments were deemed void ab initio, and the state initiated disciplinary action against him. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court after multiple rounds of litigation in the High Court.

Background of the Case

The appellant was posted as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in January 2003. During his tenure, he issued appointment letters to 400 candidates in Gorakhpur and 121 candidates in Basti as Assistant Teachers. The state authorities alleged that these appointments violated the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, particularly Rules 16 and 19(3).

As a consequence, the appellant was placed under suspension on July 24, 2003, and a departmental inquiry was initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The charge sheet, filed on August 21, 2003, accused him of making illegal appointments. The inquiry officer found him guilty, and based on the findings, the state proposed his removal from service on January 10, 2006.

The appellant challenged the suspension and subsequent dismissal orders through a series of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court initially granted a stay on his suspension but later remitted the matter for fresh disciplinary inquiry. The state continued the proceedings, ultimately resulting in his removal from service on June 27, 2017.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice.
• Whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
• Whether the appointment of 521 teachers was legally justified.
• Whether the High Court’s decision to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry was appropriate.

Arguments by the Appellant (Ramesh Singh)

The appellant contended that:

• The appointments were made in compliance with earlier High Court orders and government directives.
• The disciplinary inquiry was conducted unfairly, and he was not given an opportunity to present his defense adequately.
• He had followed instructions from senior officials and the Chief Minister’s office while making the appointments.
• The High Court erred in allowing the state to continue the inquiry despite the withdrawal of the initial dismissal order.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The state countered by asserting that:

• The appointments were illegal as they were made without following the selection process prescribed under the 1981 Rules.
• The appellant acted beyond his authority and failed to comply with the recruitment norms.
• The disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, and the appellant was given ample opportunity to respond.
• The High Court’s decision to order a fresh inquiry was necessary to ensure justice and accountability.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the inquiry proceedings and found that the disciplinary authority had failed to provide adequate notice of hearings to the appellant. The Court noted:

“The enquiry officer had not recorded any finding as to whether the appellant was given notice intimating the date, time, and place of holding the oral inquiry. The disciplinary authority, while passing the order of punishment, overlooked the mandatory requirement of holding a valid inquiry by complying with the principles of natural justice.”

The Court further observed that since the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in compliance with established legal procedures, a fresh inquiry was warranted.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order remitting the case for a fresh disciplinary inquiry. However, it modified certain aspects of the judgment:

• The appellant shall remain under suspension during the pendency of the fresh inquiry.
• The disciplinary authority must ensure that the principles of natural justice are strictly followed.
• The new inquiry officer must be appointed with the approval of the Chief Secretary.
• The inquiry must be completed within four months.
• The appellant shall be entitled to receive subsistence allowance during the suspension period.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the importance of due process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that government employees are treated fairly while maintaining accountability. Key takeaways from this judgment include:

• Public servants facing disciplinary action must be afforded a fair hearing.
• Appointments in government schools must strictly comply with recruitment rules.
• Judicial oversight is crucial in ensuring that inquiries are conducted lawfully.
• Even in cases of alleged corruption, procedural fairness cannot be overlooked.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the appellant is granted a fair opportunity to defend himself while upholding the integrity of government recruitment processes.

Petitioner Name: Ramesh Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Gorakhpur and Basti, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 03-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ramesh Singh vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category