Chandra Pal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Sri D.R. Misra, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 5.

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher in Shri Jawahar Lal Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya, Deviganj Chauraha, Suryapur, Barabanki, hereinafter referred to as "the Institution" for quashing the order dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the opposite party No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him on various charges. The suspension order has been challenged by the petitioner on several grounds including the competence of the opposite party No. 4 to pass the impugned order.

According to the petitioner, there is an approved scheme of administration of the Institution which provides that the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable and the Manager has no right to pass suspension order without approval of the competent authority which as per the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 is the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director of which Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Finance & Accounts Officer are the Members and the said Committee is empowered to consider the matters pertaining to verification of the signatures as well as managerial disputes.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charges mentioned in the suspension order in respect of which the disciplinary enquiry is contemplated are absolutely vague and in the event of their being proved, the same shall not merit imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the Committee of Management is fully empowered to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of or pending disciplinary proceeding. The Government Order dated 19.12.2000 relied upon by the petitioner has no application to disciplinary matters pertaining to the teachers and employees of an Institutions which are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and the Regulations framed thereunder.

I have examined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

The procedure for departmental enquiry against Principal/Teacher of a recognized Intermediate College has been provided for under Regulations 38 to 40 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Under Regulation 35 a power has been conferred upon the Committee of Management to suspend the Principal/Teacher of the institution during the pendency of the departmental enquiry. However, Section 16G(7) provides that no such suspension can remain in operation unless approved in writing by the District Inspector of Schools.

For the suspension of the Principal/ Teacher being approved by the District Inspector of Schools the Committee of Management is required u/s 16G(6) to transmit the documents to the office of the District Inspector of Schools within the time specified under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act which reads as follows:

The report regarding the suspension of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 16G shall contain the following particulars and be accompanied by the following document:

(a) the name of the persons suspended along with particulars of the (posts including grades) held by him since the date of his original appointment till the time of suspension including particulars as to the nature of tenure held at the time of suspension, e.g., temporary, permanent or officiating;

(b) a certified copy of the report on the basis of which such person was last confirmed or allowed to cross efficiency bar, which ever is later;

(c) details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended;

(d) certified copies of the complaints, reports and enquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended;

(e) certified copy of the resolution of the committee of management suspending such person;

(f) certified copy of the order of suspension issued to such person;

(g) In case such person was suspended previously also, details of the charges on which and the period for which he was suspended on previous occasions accompanied by certified copies of the orders on the basis of which he was reinstated.

(2) An employee other than a head of institution or a teacher may be suspended by the appointing authority on any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (C) of Sub-section (5) of Section 16G.

By necessary corollary the District Inspector of Schools is required to consider the approval of the suspension effected by the Management in light of the documents which are so forwarded to him under Regulation 39.

There is nothing on record to show that whether the order of suspension has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools or not. There is further no material on record indicating as to whether the Management had after passing the suspension order complied with the requirements of Section 16G (6) of the Act. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Manager of the Institution has no power to suspend the petitioner and it is the Regional Committee which alone is competent to suspend the petitioner is totally misconceived. Under the relevant provisions of the Act and the regulations framed thereunder the Committee of Management of an Institution is empowered to suspend the Principal/ Teacher in contemplation of or pending enquiry and the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director constituted under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 has no role to play in the disciplinary matters of the Principal/ Teacher of an Institution. The impugned order shows that the petitioner has been placed under suspension pursuant to a resolution of the Committee of Management of the Institution passed in its meeting held on 17.9.2008, hence the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order has been passed by the Manager is totally incorrect.

In view of the settled legal position that suspension is not punishment and the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him on charges which cannot be termed as vague or not grave, the impugned order of suspension is not liable to be interfered with at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.