Committee of Management, Janta Shiksha Niketan Inter College and Another vs District Inspector of Schools and Another

Sudhir Narain, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th January, 1994 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau whereby he informed the Manager of Janta Shiksha Niketan Inter College, Dubari, district Mau (hereinafter referred to as the institution) that the order of suspension passed against Kamla Pandey, Respondent No. 2 cannot be approved as the Petitioner has not sent the following papers:

(i) The copy of the resolution of suspension passed by the Committee of Management;

(ii) Copy of charges levelled against the Principal;

(iii) The dispute as regards the Committee of Management is pending in the High Court for decision.

He directed that Respondent No. 2 may be permitted to function as Principal of the institution.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. The writ petition is being disposed of finally.

I have heard Dr. R. G. Padia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 as also learned Standing Counsel.

The aforesaid institution is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Respondent No. 2 was admittedly working as Principal. The institution is managed by Committee of Management. Petitioner No. 2 claims that an election was held on 14th April, 1993 for a period of three years. The District Inspector of Schools recognised the Petitioner as the lawful Committee of Management by order dated 10th September, 1993. The rival Committee of Management filed a writ petition in this Court and this Court passed the following interim order:

Unless the order dated 14.9.93 has already not been given effect to, the operation of that order shall remain stayed till 15.10.93 unless this order is modified or vacated.

Sd/R.K.G. 27.9.93.

The said order has been extended until further orders.

The Petitioner states that the operation of the order dated 14th September, 1993 had already been given effect to and, therefore, the interim stay order passed by this Court was never operative as against the Petitioner.

Petitioners took disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 2 and on 28th January, 1994, the Manager passed an order of suspension. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Mau, Respondent No. 1. On 29th January, 1994. the District Inspector of Schools, Mau passed the impugned order disapproving the order of suspension.

The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the District Inspector of Schools has to wait for 7 days before passing the order as the time granted for intimating the suspension was 7 days and before 7 days, he could not have passed the order.

The order of suspension has to be passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 16G(7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 16G of the Act are relevant which read as under:

(6). Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commencement, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspension in other case, and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents.

(7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 or, as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.

Under Sub-section (6), it is incumbent upon the management to intimate with regard to order of suspension within seven days from the date of the order of suspension. This does not contemplate that District Inspector of Schools cannot pass any order for a period of seven days. The intention of the Legislature was that in case the order of suspension is passed that should be immediately reported to the District Inspector of Schools and outer limit of fixing time is seven days. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools cannot pass any order for seven days cannot be accepted.

The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that necessary papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools including copy of charge-sheet and that observation in his order is erroneous. It was open to the Petitioner to make representation to the District Inspector of Schools that the copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management and the charge-sheet were submitted. The Petitioner has not made any representation and in this petition, the Petitioner has not placed any material evidence to establish that those papers were, in fact, received by the District Inspector of Schools.

The third submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before Respondent No. 1 had passed a final order and at least he should have asked the Petitioner to produce the papers as desired by him. Regulation 39 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act provides that certain papers which are required to be submitted before the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval should have been submitted. The District Inspector of Schools will be Justified in disapproving the suspension order if those papers have not been forwarded. This view was also expressed in Committee of Management, Adarsh Ram Chandra Inter College, Chordiha, District Deoria and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and Anr. 1994 (1) UPLBEC 129.

Respondent No. 1 had not passed the order of disapproval on merits. It was open to the Petitioner to have submitted before Respondent No. 1 necessary papers as required under law and such other evidence to justify the order of suspension. The Petitioner could have made further representation in the matter before him.

As regards the dispute between the rival Committee of Management, Respondent No. 1 could have considered as to who was in effective control and even the Managing Committee who was in effective control had a right to take disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee. It was for the Petitioner to establish its rights before Respondent No. 1.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be open to the Petitioner to submit the papers afresh for consideration before the District Inspector of Schools, Respondent No. 1. If the Petitioners submit the papers, the District Inspector of Schools will again consider the matter in accordance with law. As the Petitioners had not submitted the papers as indicated by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, there is no reason to interfere in the order dated 29th January, 1994.

The mere fact that 60 days have passed will not debar the District Inspector of Schools to consider the proposal of the Committee of Management for approval of its resolution for suspension of Respondent No. 2 as held in the case of Committee of Management, Adarsh Ram Chandra Inter College, (supra).

The suspension order, however, cannot continue for more than 60 days have already passed. Respondent No. 2 shall be permitted to Join the institution. in case suspension order is approved, Respondent No. 2 shall not be permitted to function from the date of District Inspector of Schools grants approval.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned Counsel within one week on payment of usual charges.