Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 905 (ALL)

Archana Sahu v. State of U. P.

2025-07-04

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.M. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Shrinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3, District Basic Eduction Officer, Bhadohi, in terms of which one increment of the petitioner has been withheld with cumulative effect, and the petitioner has also been transferred from the place of her posting in Primary School, Bhawapur, Block Deegh, District Bhadohi. 3. The petitioner claims to have made a representation against the aforesaid order before the respondent no.3. 4. Counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the said representation. 5. It is pointed out that the services of the petitioner are governed by the UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUCATION STAFF RULES , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1973'). The provisions relating to punishment and appeal are provided under Rules 3 and 5 of the aforesaid Rules, 1973. For ease of reference, Rules 3 and 5 are being extracted below:- " 3. Punishment. —The appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, impose the following penalties upon the officers, teachers and other employees of the Board : (i) Censure; (ii) withholding of the increments including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) Reduction to a lower post of time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board by negligence or breach of orders; (v) Removal from the service of the Board which does not disqualify him from future employment; (vi) Dismissal from the service of the Board which ordinarily disqualifies him from future employment. 5. Appeal. 5. Appeal. —(1) An appeal shall lie from an order passed by the appointing authority in respect of the posts mentioned in Column 1 of the Schedule appended to these rules, imposing upon any officer, teacher or other employee of the Board any of the penalties mentioned below, to the appellate authority mentioned in column 3 of the said schedule:- (a) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (b) Removal from service of the Board which does not disqualify for future employment; (c) Dismissal from the service of the Board, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. (2) In case of other penalties against which no appeal is provided in this rule, the punished officer, teacher or other employee of the Board may make a representation against the imposition of any of these penalties to such officer as the Director of Education (Basic) may by general orders from time to time specify in this behalf. (3) The procedure laid down in Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations under these rules." 6. The UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUCATION STAFF RULES , 1973, have been made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the UTTAR PRADESH BASIC EDUCATION ACT , 1972, and apply to the officers, teachers and other employees of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education. 7. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1973 provides the remedy of appeal in regard to imposition of the penalties specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. Further, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, in case of other penalties for which no appeal is provided in the rule, the punished officer, teacher or other employee of the Board has been given the option to make a representation against imposition of the penalty to such officer as the Director of Education (Basic) may specify. 8. An appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 would lie against imposition of the following penalties; (i) reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale; (ii) removal from service of the Board which does not disqualify for future employment; (iii) dismissal from the service of the Board, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. The appellate authority before whom the appeal is to be preferred has been specified in the schedule appended to the rules. 9. The remedy of filing a representation is available in case of other penalties against which no appeal is provided. The other penalties against which a representation may be made are as follows: (i) censure; (ii) withholding of the increments including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board by negligence or breach of orders. The representation is to be made to such officer as the Director of Education (Basic) may by general orders from time to time specify in this behalf. 10. The right to invoke the remedy of an appeal, or alternatively to prefer a representation under Rule 5 of the Rules 1973 is, therefore, dependant on the nature of penalty that has been imposed. The distinction between an appeal and a representation lies primarily on the nature of penalty imposed and the authority to whom the grievance is to be addressed. While an appeal would serve as a more formal legal challenge to an order imposing any of the major penalties specified under sub- rule (1), the remedy of a representation would be available in case of other penalties against which appeal is not provided. 11. In the instant case the order impugned has imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. 12. The aforesaid penalty is not specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and therefore no appeal would lie against the imposition of the said penalty. However, in terms of sub-rule (2), against the aforesaid order of penalty, the petitioner would have a right to make a representation before the officer specified in regard to the same. 13. Counsel for the petitioner seeks to invoke sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 to prefer a representation before the authority specified for the purpose. 14. Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that in case the petitioner prefers a representation in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the same would be considered appropriately and an order would be passed. 15. 14. Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that in case the petitioner prefers a representation in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the same would be considered appropriately and an order would be passed. 15. The petitioner, would therefore be at liberty to invoke the remedy of making a representation in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1973, within a period of two weeks from today, and in the event such representation is moved, the specified authority would accord consideration to the same and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks thereafter. 16. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.