Court quashes ex parte adverse findings and salary stoppage against 15 Assistant Teachers in Social Welfare aided schools, directing fresh inquiry based on verified records and providing opportunity of hearing
In a significant judgment dated 25.09.2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, allowed a writ petition filed by Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 other Assistant Teachers challenging adverse administrative orders that questioned the legality of their appointments in basic schools aided by the Uttar Pradesh Social Welfare Department.
The petitioners had been appointed between 2010 and 2016 in recognized basic schools receiving grants for payment of teaching staff salaries. Their appointments had undergone prior scrutiny including a departmental inquiry in 2018 and subsequent approval by the State Government in 2019. Despite this, fresh adverse reports in 2025 alleged non-existence of necessary approvals and directed recovery of salaries and departmental action, leading to stoppage of their salaries.
The Court extensively analyzed the entire administrative chronology, including:
- The original appointments made after due procedure with approval from the District Basic Education Officer, Mau.
- The 2018 three-member inquiry committee report which found no illegality in the petitioners' appointments, except for four others whose approvals were cancelled.
- The 2019 State Government order which upheld the petitioners' appointments and permitted payment of salary.
- The criminal investigations arising from FIRs which concluded with final reports exonerating the petitioners.
- The fresh 2025 adverse reports and consequential administrative orders issued without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Highlighting the fundamental legal principle that absence or non-traceability of official records alone does not prove fraud or illegality, the Court held that the adverse conclusions based on ex parte verification without petitioner-specific inquiry or compliance with natural justice were unsustainable. It emphasized that mere invocation of statutory provisions like Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools Rules, 1975, does not by itself establish illegality.
The Court further noted that the State could revisit the matter but must do so with reasoned and speaking orders, based on cogent material, after giving the petitioners and the managements a meaningful opportunity to respond and produce supporting documents. Importantly, the Court underscored that where prior administrative decisions and government approvals exist, a departure from those positions must be justified by fresh material and reasons.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned adverse reports dated 25.04.2025, 13.06.2025, 17.06.2025, and 23.06.2025, and the consequential order dated 18.07.2025 insofar as they adversely affected the petitioners. It quashed all consequential actions including salary stoppage and directions for recovery. The respondents were granted liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly in accordance with law and within the scope of government mandates, considering the entire record including earlier inquiry reports, government orders, financial sanctions, and criminal investigation outcomes.
Until such fresh inquiry and final decision, the petitioners are to be treated as continuing in service and their claims for salary for the period worked are to be reconsidered under applicable frameworks.
This judgment reinforces the principles of administrative fairness, natural justice, and the necessity of individualised and evidence-based inquiry before stigmatic and consequential administrative actions can be taken, particularly in service matters involving long-standing employees. It also clarifies that administrative non-production of records cannot be equated with fraud without proper verification and explanation.
Bottom Line:
Service law - Assistant Teachers in aided basic schools - Adverse reports and consequential action questioning appointments on ground of non-availability of approval records cannot be sustained when founded on ex parte verification, without petitioner-specific inquiry, without considering earlier departmental inquiry and government decision, and without complying with principles of natural justice - Missing or non-traceable official record is not by itself proof of fraud.
Statutory provision(s): Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (as amended in 1977), Rule 9.
Rajneesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2985888
