Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry, emphasizing compliance with natural‑justice requirements, and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

Ramesh Singh, the District Basic Education Officer, appointed 521 assistant teachers without the mandatory recommendation of a Selection Committee as required by Rules 16 and 19(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. The State suspended him and, under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, conducted a disciplinary enquiry that found him guilty and ordered his removal on 27 June 2017. The Allahabad High Court quashed the removal order, holding that the enquiry violated natural‑justice principles, and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to start afresh from the charge‑sheet stage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s remand, directing a fresh enquiry to be conducted in accordance with natural justice, with the appellant remaining under suspension and the enquiry to be completed within four months. The Court dismissed the appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying corruption allegations.

Issues considered

The appointments made by the appellant complied with Rules 16 and 19(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.
Whether the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the State adhered to the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court’s order remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh enquiry is legally sustainable.
Whether the appellant should continue to be suspended pending the fresh enquiry.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981s. Rule 16, s. Rule 19(3), s. Rule 2, s. Rule 8
Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999

Subjects

appointmentselection committeenatural justicedisciplinary enquirysuspensionservice rulescorruptionvoid ab initioUttar Pradeshteachers

Judgment

[2020] 2 S.C.R. 1117 1117

RAMESH SINGH A
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2020)
MARCH 03, 2020 B
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 – r.r. 16
and 19(3) – Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1999 – The appellant was the in-charge District Basic
C
Education Officer, where he issued appointment letters to 521
candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers – The State placed
appellant under suspension and directed a disciplinary/
departmental enquiry under the Rules, 1999 – The charge-sheet
was filed wherein it was alleged that the appointments of Assistant
Teachers made by the appellant were irregular and in violation of D
rr.16 and 19(3) of the Rules, 1981 – After the series of litigations,
the order of the removal from the service passed by the Governor
dated 21.4.2008 was stayed and appellant was directed to co-
operate with the disciplinary proceedings – All the appointments
made were declared void-ab-initio – The enquiry was conducted
E
without affording any opportunity of hearing and adducing
evidence through production of witnesses – The disciplinary
authority granted a personal hearing to the appellant and found
all charges proved against the appellant and passed an order of
removal from service on 27.6.2017 – The appellant challenged the
order dated 27.6.2017 by way of writ petition – The High Court F
concluded that since the enquiry was held in violation of the
principles of natural justice, the order dated 27.6.2017 was quashed
and the matter was remitted to the discipline authority to hold the
enquiry afresh from the stage of charge-sheet – On appeal, held: A
perusal of Service Rules, 1981 makes it clear that the appellant as
G
the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority
was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of the
recommendations of the Selection committee as contemplated by
Rules 16 and 19(3) – The allegations of corruption and appointments
being made without complying with the 1981 Rules were made against
H
1117
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.

A the appellant – The plea of appellant that appointments were made
in compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court and
under the directions of senior functionaries, are required to be
considered in the enquiry – Therefore, the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary
authority, which would be conducted from the stage of the charge-
B
sheet, upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A perusal of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 reveals that the appellant as the
C District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority
was empowered to make appointments only on the basis of
recommendations of the Selection Committee as contemplated
by Rules 16 and 19(3) as set out hereinabove. It is the case of
the Respondent-State that the appellant made the appointments
without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations of
D corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state,
which would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by
the disciplinary authority. It is pertinent to note that all these
appointments were declared to be void ab initio by the State, as
mentioned in the appellant’s reply dated 04.12.2012 to the second
E show cause notice. The plea of the appellant that the appointments
were made in compliance with an earlier order passed by the
High Court, and under the directions of senior functionaries,
would require to be considered in the enquiry. [Para 16]
[1126 A-C]

F 2. This Court upholds the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority,
which would be conducted from the stage of the charge sheet.
The disciplinary authority will conduct the enquiry in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, after giving a full opportunity
of hearing to the appellant, who will be allowed to produce both
G oral and documentary evidence. [Para 17][1126 C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A. No. 31098 of 2017.
H
RAMESH SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1119
AND ANR.

Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Imtiaz Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed A
Zargham, Farheen Fatima, Ahmed Faraz (for M/S. Equity Lex
Associates), Advs. for the Appellant.
A.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Krishnanand Pandeya, Siddharth Sengar,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The appellant was posted as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District
Basti in January 2003. The appellant was the In-charge District Basic C
Education Officer Gorakhpur, when he issued appointment letters to
400 candidates holding B.Ed. degrees to the post of Assistant Teachers
in Basic Schools (Primary Schools) in District Gorakhpur, and 121
candidates in District Basti during April to June 2003.
2. The State vide Office Order dated 24.07.2003 placed the D
appellant under suspension, and directed a disciplinary/departmental
enquiry to be conducted under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The State appointed the Joint Director, Basic
Education as the Enquiry Officer.
The Charge Sheet was filed on 21.08.2003 wherein it was alleged E
that the appointments of Assistant Teachers made by the appellant were
irregular, as they were in violation of Rules 16 and 19(3) of the U.P.
Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (“1981 Rules”).
3. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet on
09.11.2003 denying the charges levelled against him. It was contended F
that the appointments were made by him in compliance with earlier orders
passed by the High Court, and directions from senior functionaries.
4. The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of the charges
levelled against him in the charge sheet. The Report of the Enquiry
Officer was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.06.2004. G
5. The appellant challenged the order of suspension by way of
W.P. (C) 52287/2005, wherein the High Court vide interim Order dated
28.07.2005 granted stay of the order of suspension.
6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Deputy Secretary,
Basic Education Department vide Order dated 10.01.2006 proposed H
punishment of removal from service.
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.

A The appellant challenged the Order dated 10.01.2006 by filing
W.P. (C) No. 14083/2006, wherein vide interim order dated 08.03.2006,
the High Court directed stay of the aforesaid Order of proposed
punishment.
7. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Government decided to
B award major punishment of removal from service under the provisions
of the U.P. Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and
referred the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
vide Government Order dated 17.10.2005. The U.P. Public Service
Commission approved the punishment of service to the appellant vide
letter dated 21.12.2006. The order of removal from service was passed
C by the Governor dated 21.04.2008.
8. The appellant challenged the Order of Removal in W.P. (C)
No. 28842/2008, wherein the High Court vide interim order dated
20.06.2008 directed that the operation, implementation and execution of
the order of dismissed dated 21.04.2008 shall remain stayed.
D
Subsequent to the interim order, the State Government withdrew
the proposed order of punishment on 19.05.2010.
As a consequence, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on
25.05.2010 with the observation that the disciplinary proceedings may
E be concluded in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 6
months. The appellant was directed to co-operate with the disciplinary
proceedings.
9. The disciplinary authority issued a second show cause notice
along-with the enquiry report.
F The appellant inter alia submitted that conditional appointments
had been made against fixed pay scale pursuant to the orders of the
court, and pressure from the government. All appointments made were
declared void ab initio. The enquiry was conducted without affording
any opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence through production of
witnesses.
G
10. The disciplinary authority granted a personal hearing to the
appellant.
The disciplinary authority found all the charges proved against
the appellant, and passed an order of removal from service on 27.06.2017.
H
RAMESH SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1121
AND ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

11. The appellant challenged the order dated 27.06.2017 by way A
of Writ A. No. 31098/2017 before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated
10.05.2018 partly allowed the Writ Petition.
The High Court held that the enquiry officer had not recorded
any finding as to whether the appellant was given a notice intimating the B
date, time and place of holding the oral enquiry. The appellant had
expressly taken the plea that the enquiry officer had not afforded any
opportunity of hearing. The disciplinary authority while passing the order
of punishment overlooked the mandatory requirement of holding a valid
enquiry by complying with the principles of natural justice. C
In these circumstances, the High Court felt that it would not be
appropriate to consider the contention of the appellant that the
appointments were made in compliance with the order passed by High
Court and pursuant to the directions of the higher authorities, since it
would require appreciation of the evidence on record. D
The High Court, however, rejected the contention that the enquiry
officer was biased, as there was no material on record to reveal any
element of bias on part of the enquiry officer.
The Court rejected the contention of the appellant for parity with
the case of K.C. Bharati who had been awarded a lesser punishment E
of withholding one increment for one year, and a censure entry in his
service record.
The High Court concluded that since the enquiry was held in
violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of dismissal from
service dated 27.06.2017 was liable to be quashed. The matter was F
remitted to the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry afresh from the
stage of charge sheet. It was further directed that the appellant shall be
treated under suspension, during the pendency of the enquiry and shall
be paid subsistence allowance as per the Rules.
The Court deprecated the casual and callous manner in which the G
disciplinary authorities had acted in conducting an enquiry into grave
allegations of corruption of such a magnitude where hundreds of
appointments were made by the appellant, without following the due
process of law. A direction was issued to the disciplinary authority to
appoint an enquiry officer with the approval of the Chief Minister, who
should be apprised of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.

A 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed the present
Special Leave Petition before this Court. This Court vide Order
09.07.2018 issued notice on whether the appellant should be continued
on suspension, and whether the disciplinary authority should report the
matter to the Chief Minister.
B Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the State granted sanction
vide Office Memo dated 11.10.2018 to re-conduct the enquiry from the
stage of the charge sheet.
By a further order dated 31.10.2018, this Court ordered stay of
the operation of the Office Memo dated 11.10.2018.
C 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused
the record.
The issue which arises for our consideration is whether the
appointment letters issued to 521 candidates who were B.Ed. degree
holders for the post of Assistant Teachers, was conducted de hors the
D mandatory procedure prescribed by the Rules.
14. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the continued
suspension of the appellant was not justified, and that his client had made
the appointments pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court, and also
instructions from higher authorities.
E
14.1. Reliance was placed on a letter dated 10.04.2003 addressed
by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to all the Divisional
Assistant Directors of Education (Basic) U.P, wherein it was directed
that orders passed by the High Court in connection with appointment of
teachers be complied by the District Basic Education Officers.
F
14.2. It was further submitted that vide letter dated 18.4.2003,
the appellant had requested the Director Basic Education, U.P. to issue
directives for appointment of candidates to the post of Assistant Teachers
in schools, who held qualifications of B.Ed./L.T./B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed.
14.3. By a further letter dated 21.04.2003, the appellant informed
G the Secretary, Basic Education, Govt. of U.P. that there were posts of
Teachers lying vacant in District Gorakhpur, and there was no provision
for appointment of candidates holding qualifications of B.Ed./L.T./
B.PEd./C.P.Ed. to the post of Assistant Teachers.

H
RAMESH SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1123
AND ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

14.4. The appellant subsequently issued a notification dated A
25.04.2003 stating that a decision was taken to issue appointment orders
to candidates with B.Ed./L.T. pursuant to discussions with the Chief
Minister, and the Minister for Basic Education, Secretary, Basic
Education, Govt. of U.P. held on 23.04.2003. It is also mentioned that he
was given directions that if the appointments were not made immediately,
B
departmental proceedings would be initiated against him.
14.5. Accordingly, the appellant made appointments to 521 posts
of Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools during the period May to June
2003.
14.6. It was further submitted that the appellant sought the advice C
of the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
The Chief Standing Counsel vide letter dated 01.05.2003 stated
that the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 was general in nature.
The appellant was advised to take a decision with the consent of the
Government since such cases may affect the State in similar cases. D
14.7. The appellant addressed another letter dated 06.05.2003 to
the Secretary, Basic Education Council seeking instructions on whether
the appointment of candidates holding higher qualifications of B.Ed./
L.T./B.PEd./C.P.Ed. could be made in accordance with the High Court
orders/directives. E
14.8. The Secretary Basic Education vide Order dated 28.05.2003
directed all Divisional Assistant Director (Basic Education) to make
appointments of candidates to the post of Teachers only in those cases
in which final/interim orders had been passed by High Court by
02.06.2003. F
14.9. The appellant placed reliance on an earlier judgment of the
division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 21(SB)/
1993. The High Court took note of an earlier judgement in Firoz Alam
Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1986 UP LBC 674 wherein it was directed
that if sufficient number of B.T.C. trained candidates were not available
G
for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Basic Schools, the candidates
who qualified for appointment as stated in the advertisement could be
appointed.

H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.

A The High Court in that case had referred to the judgement of this
Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Ghani and Ors. v. District & Sessions
Judge, Nagpur1, wherein it was held as under:
“21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate
his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he
B is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be
rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those
candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SCC
Examination could not also be considered. We are saying this
on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood
as laying down a rule of universal application.”
C
[emphasis supplied]
15. We have perused the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981, which lays down the procedure for appointment of
Assistant Teachers in basic schools in U.P.
D Sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 2 defines the “competent authority” as
under:
“(b) ‘Appointing Authority’ in relation to teachers referred to
in Rule 3 means the District Basic Education Officer”
Rule 8 prescribes the academic qualifications for the post of
E
Assistant Teachers as:
“8. Academic qualifications. - (1) The Essential qualifications
of candidates for appointment to a post referred to in clause
(a) of Rule 5 shall be shown below against each :
F Pos t Aca demic Qua lificat ion s
…

(ii) Assi stan t Mas ter A Bachelor ’s Deg ree from a Univers ity
and Ass istant es ta b l i s h e d by l a w i n I nd i a or a
Mis tress o f Junior Degree recogni zed by th e G o ver nment
Bas ic Scho ols as equival en t thereto togeth er with th e
tra in in g q ua lif ica tio n co ns ist ing of a
G Bas ic Tea ch er’s C erti ficate, V is hs hi t
Ba sic T ea che r’s C er tif icate (B .T.C ),
Hi n du s t a n i t ea ch er ’ s C e r t i f ic a t e ,
J u n i o r T e a c h e r ’ s C e r t if ic a te ,
Ce rti fic at e of t eac hi n g o r a ny o th er
Tr aini n g C ou r se re co gn iz ed by t h e
Go v er n me n t as eq ui va l en t t h er et o.
H 1
(2000) 2 SCC 606
RAMESH SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1125
AND ANR. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Rule 16 provides for constitution of the Selection Committee for A
making appointments to any post under these Rules :
“16. Constitution of Selection Committee – For selection of
candidates for appointment to any post under these Rules,
there shall be constituted a Selection Committee comprising –
a) Principal, District Institute of – Chairman B
Education and Training
b) District Basic Education Officer – Member -Secretary
c) Principal, Government Girl’s – Member
Intermediate College at the C
District Head-quarters
d) District Non-Formal Education – Member
Officer)
f) One Specialist in Hindu, Urdu – Member
D
or other languages, as the case
may be, nominated by District
Magistrate
…”
Rule 19(3) provides that no appointment shall be made except E
upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee.
“19. Appointment. –
…
(3) No appointment shall be made except with the F
recommendation of the Selection Committee, and in the case
of direct recruitment except on production of residence
certificate issued by the Tahsildar.”
[emphasis supplied]
16. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules reveals that the appellant as G
the District Basic Education Officer, being the appointing authority was
empowered to make appointments only on the basis of recommendations
of the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rules 16 and 19(3) as
set out hereinabove.
H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 2 S.C.R.

A It is the case of the Respondent-State that the appellant made the
appointments without complying with the 1981 Rules. Serious allegations
of corruption have been raised against the appellant by the state, which
would require determination in a full-fledged enquiry by the disciplinary
authority. It is pertinent to note that all these appointments were declared
to be void ab initio by the State, as mentioned in the appellant’s reply
B
dated 04.12.2012 to the second show cause notice.
The plea of the appellant that the appointments were made in
compliance with an earlier order passed by the High Court, and under
the directions of senior functionaries, would require to be considered in
the enquiry.
C
17. We uphold the impugned judgment passed by the High Court
in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, which would be
conducted from the stage of the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority
will conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural
justice, after giving a full opportunity of hearing to the appellant, who will
D be allowed to produce both oral and documentary evidence. No
unnecessary adjournments will be granted to the parties.
The appellant will continue to remain under suspension during the
period of enquiry. The enquiry is directed to be completed within a period
of 4 months.
E
We modify the impugned judgement to the extent that the enquiry
officer be appointed by the Chief Secretary.
Let a copy of this order be despatched to the Chief Secretary.
It is clarified that there is no expression of any opinion on the
F merits of the case.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
Pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
G

Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.

H