The Allahabad High Court has set aside adverse inquiry reports and consequential action against 15 assistant teachers in Uttar Pradesh after finding that the authorities had not adequately examined the disputed appointment approval records before drawing adverse conclusions against them. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan allowed the writ petition while permitting the State to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.
Background
The petitioners, including Rajneesh Upadhyay, were appointed as assistant teachers in recognised private institutions in Mau district between 2010 and 2016. Their appointments had received approval at the district level, followed by financial approval from the State Government.
The appointments were subsequently questioned after authorities reported that records of the approvals could not be traced. The State initiated fresh proceedings in 2025, alleging irregularities and directing action against the teachers. Their salaries were also affected.
The teachers challenged the administrative reports and orders, arguing that their appointments had previously undergone departmental scrutiny. An earlier inquiry in 2018 had led to action against four other teachers, while the present petitioners’ appointments were not cancelled through that exercise. Criminal investigations had also resulted in final reports concerning the allegations.
The State, however, maintained that the appointments required examination under the applicable recruitment rules and disputed whether the prescribed approval requirements had been satisfied.
Examining the competing submissions and documentary record, the Court found that the subsequent inquiry had not adequately reconciled the earlier departmental findings, government approvals and material relied upon by the teachers. It emphasised that the absence of a presently traceable record could not, by itself, establish that an approval had never been granted or that an appointment had been fraudulently obtained.
The Court observed:
“A missing record may justify an enquiry; it cannot, without more, constitute the result of that enquiry. A missing dispatch entry may require verification; it cannot, by itself, become proof of fraudulent procurement of appointment.”
The Court also stressed the importance of procedural fairness before an administrative authority reaches a conclusion carrying serious consequences for an employee.
“The State must prove before it penalises; verify before it condemns; hear before it visits civil consequences; and explain before it reverses its own considered administrative position.”
However, the Court clarified that its findings did not conclusively establish the validity of every appointment. The State retained the authority to investigate any established violation of the applicable statutory requirements.
The High Court set aside the reports dated April 25, June 13, June 17 and June 23, 2025, along with the consequential order dated July 18, 2025, insofar as they adversely affected the petitioners without the required safeguards. Actions founded exclusively on those reports were also quashed.
The Court permitted a fresh inquiry, requiring verification of original records, consideration of earlier findings and criminal investigation reports, and a reasonable opportunity for the teachers and managements to respond to adverse material. Any final decision must identify the applicable legal requirements and provide specific reasons.
Until a lawful final decision is reached, the teachers cannot be treated as removed from service solely on the basis of the reports set aside. Their salary claims for periods during which they actually performed their duties must be reconsidered under the applicable legal and financial framework.
The writ petition was allowed in these terms, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Writ-A No. 11862 of 2025
Judge: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Decision Date: September 25, 2026
