Malti Sinha vs U.P.Secondary Education Services Commission Allahabad & Ors.

M. Katju, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23796, Annexure 21 to the writ petition, by which U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission has approved the termination of services of the petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as Counsel for the Commission and learned standing Counsel and also Sri J.P. Pandey Counsel for the management.

The Balrampur Balika Inter College, Gonda is an institution aided and recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner was initially appointed in the institution and C.T. grade in 1964 and she was promoted to L.T. grade in 1966 and as lecturer in 1969. On 30691 the permanent principal retired and the petitioner being senior most teacher was appointed as ad hoc principal from 1791. It is alleged in para 8 of the petition that certain members of the committee of management were annoyed with the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner and hence they made false complaint against him. On the basis of this complaint an enquiry was constituted but it is alleged in para 10 of the petition that this enquiry committee submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were vague and were not sufficient material. However the said committee recommended that the committee of management may hold its own inquiry. In para 11 of the petition it is stated that the committee of management by resolution dated 301092 suspended the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer. This suspension order lapsed after 60 days as it had not been approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools within 60 days. However, the committee of management passed a second suspension order dated 271292 which was disapproved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 18193. Against this order Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1993 was filed by the management. This Court by order dated 16293 permitted the committee of management to take or not from the petitioner. The petitioner was to get full salary and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was to pass a speaking order, consequently the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by order 30393 disapproved the suspension of the petitioner. This order was placed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1993 and the Court by order dated 15593 directed that the petitioner could continue to function to work as principal. However, the committee of management again suspended the petitioner on 30893 but this order was not approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools within 60 days and hence another order dated 30393 was passed reverting the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. It is alleged that this order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From 11193 to June 1994 the petitioner was not paid salary as principal or Lecturer but from July 1994 she was paid salary of lecturer. The petitioner being aggrieved filed writ petition No. 4644 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and this Court by order dated 41094 held that the suspension order shall stand revoked because the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools had not granted approval within 60 days vide Annexure 2 to the petition.

It is alleged in para 21 of the petition that there are two sets of rival management committees and hence the matter was referred under Section 16A(7) to the Deputy Director of Education vide Annexure 3 to the petition but the Deputy Director of Education has not yet decided the dispute. Hence by order dated 3893 an authorised controller was appointed pending decision by the Deputy Director of Education. The committee of management headed by Vinay Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 1926 of 1993 in the Lucknow Bench in which a time bound interim order was granted in favour of the committee of management but that order has expired. True copy of the interim order is Annexure 4 to the petition. Hence an authorised controller was again appointed on 9496. This appointment was challenged in Writ Petition No. 923 of 1996 in which a limited stay order was granted which has expired. It is alleged in para 31 of the petition that after expiry of the term of the earlier committee of management in 1993 no committee of management has been recognised by the education authorities as the valid committee of management and the controversy regarding the rival committees has been pending before Deputy Director of Education. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 had no authority to conduct any proceeding against a teacher or principal. However, it is alleged that the committee of management headed by K.K. Pandey at the relevant time with mala fide intention initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by K.N. Tripathi and Yogendra Singh by resolution dated 2692. The alleged committee is alleged to have passed a resolution for constitution of an enquiry committee of five members including K.K. Pandey and Syed Ali Mehdi as Convenors. It is alleged in para 36 of the petition that the said enquiry committee submitted a report that the charges against petitioner were not specific and the same may be inquired into by the management itself. A true copy of resolution of the committee of management dated 2692 and the report of the enquiry committee dated 28692 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Acting on the said report, the management passed a fresh resolution dated 301092, Annexure 8 to the petition by which it was resolved that the enquiry be conducted against the petitioner by Syed Ali Mehdi alone. It is alleged in para 39 of the petition that appointment of a member enquiry committee against the petitioner was illegal as the petitioner was holding the post of principal and hence a subcommittee should have been constituted. It is alleged in para 41 of the petition that the alleged committee of management served upon petitioner show cause notices dated 71292, 23493 and 14793 and 1993, Annexures 9 to 12 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 42 of the petition that the aforesaid show cause notices were said to be the chargesheet. However, none of the documents of evidence proposed to be relied upon was appended to the notices. It is stated in para 43 of the petition that by means of letter dated 24393, the petitioner requested that the documentary evidence be made available to him. It is alleged in para 44 that although by letter dated 27493, the enquiry committee assured the petitioner that documents would be made available to her but these documents were neither made available nor were shown to her. Copy of the letter dated 2741993 is Annexure 3 to the petition. In para 46 of the petition it is alleged that at no point of time any oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the alleged enquiry committee nor was the petitioner given opportunity of hearing or opportunity to crossexamination the witnesses against her. In para 47 it is alleged that the enquiry committee followed a very peculiar procedure for the purposes of recording of evidence namely questionnaire was prepared by the Manager of the Institution which was circulated amongst the teachers and staff of the institution and they were required to submit a reply to the said questionnaire.

In para 48 it is alleged that the questionnaire was not made available to the petitioner, nor was she afforded any opportunity to crossexamine the teachers and staff who have submitted the said questionnaire by the Inquiry Committee. In para 49 it is alleged that except for the dates 2331993,2741993 and 17 71993 no other date was communicated to the petitioner by t he enquiry committee about the conduct of the inquiry proceeding. The said inquiry committee is said to have completed its inquiry in its meeting dated 24111993 in respect whereof a notice was ever served upon the petitioner. In para 50 it is alleged that as a matter of fact, the entire enquiry proceedings have been manufactured by the respondents by antedating the records and are an outcome of clear mala fide attitude of the committee of management. In para 51 of the petition it is alleged that the very constitution of the inquiry committee was vitiated and contrary to Regulation 35 and the procedure followed by the alleged inquiry committee was hit by Regulation 36 and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. In para 52 of the petition the petitioner has quoted the counteraffidavit filed by the by. Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1993. In para 53 of the petition reference has been made to the report of the inquiry committee which was forwarded by the alleged committee of management to the petitioner vide letter dated 27101994, copy of which letter is Annexure 15 to the petition. In para 56 of the petition it is stated that the committee of management passed a resolution dated 20395 proposing dismissal of the petitioner''s services vide Annexure 17. In para 57 it is alleged that this resolution in was required to be forwarded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. However, the District Inspector of Schools at the relevant time Sarva Jeet Singh Bora who was said to have been won over by the alleged committee of management because of corrupt practices, assumed powers of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and forwarded the resolution of the committee of management with his own recommendations, which was wholly uncalled for and without authority of law in view of Regulation 2C read with Regulation 6 of the U.R Secondary Education Service Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985. Under Regulation 6 of the punishment Regulations, 1985 the Inspector (in the instant case the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools) is required to submit his report pointing out the defects if any, in the proceedings of the management.

It is alleged in para 58 of the petition that the alleged committee of management with mala fide intention in order to avoid the said report of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, has deliberately routed papers through the office of the District Inspector of Schools who was hostile the petitioner and had been won over by the management as established by the counteraffidavit of the Deputy Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1993. In para 59 of the petition it is alleged that the Commission vide letter dated 1491995, had issued notice to the petitioner, Annexure 19 to the petition. The letter of Manager of the Institution was also sent along with this letter. The petitioner sent her reply dated 81295 vide Annexure 20 to the petition. It is alleged in para 63 of the petition that the commission by means of order dated 2371996, has approved the punishment proposed by the alleged committee of management vide resolution dated 2031995. In para 65 it is alleged that the Commission in the impugned order has not cared to look into the explanation furnished by the petitioner in respect of specific charges and has only referred to the allegations made against the petitioner without application of mind. In para 72 of the petition it is alleged that the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were manifestly illegal and have been held in manifest violation of the principles of natural justice. In para 73 it is alleged that the petitioner had objected to the induction of Syed Ali Mehdi Rizvi as the nominee to the enquiry committee. It is further alleged that the daughter of the Chairman of the Commission was engaged to the son of Rizvi. In para 76 it is alleged that the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 2961995, while forwarding the relevant documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner had mentioned that the total number of papers were 1 to 129 but it was surprising that the Commission, while forwarding the letter dated 1491995 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, had increased the number of papers in the inquiry proceedings from pages 1 to 265. It is thus, apparent that pages 130 to 265 have been inducted into the records of the Commission by the alleged committee of management without the same having been routed through the inspector.

A counteraffidavit has been filed by the authorised controller. In para 9 of the counteraffidavit it is stated that there was a dispute between rival committees of management and hence the authorised controller was appointed. This appointment was challenged by Vinay Pal Singh Tomar by means of Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1996 but the said writ petition was dismissed on 2996. The special appeal against that order was decided on 20996 vide Annexure CA2 to the counteraffidavit. In para 11 of the counteraffidavit it is stated that the resolution and the inquiry report would have been forwarded through the office of Regional Inspector of Girls Schools only in order to enable the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools to point out the defects in the inquiry report. The District Inspector of Schools could not have forwarded the resolution and inquiry report nor was he competent to make recommendation in that regard inasmuch as the institution is a Girls Institution.

No counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.

Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed on several grounds. The narration of the facts show that in fact an authorised controller has been functioning in the institution in view of the dispute between rival committees of management. The term of the earlier committee of management expired on 91192 and thereafter two elections were claimed to have been held, on 111192 by Indra Sen Gulati and another dated 24493 by VP. S. Tomar and the matter has been referred by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 1 6A (7) by order dated 26593 and the dispute has not yet been decided. In the meantime by order dated 3893 an authorised controller was appointed. That appointment was challenged by V.P.S. Tomar in Writ Petition No. 1926 of 1993 in which a time bound interim order was granted which expired and hence an authorised controller was again appointed on 9496. In this connection a writ petition was filed in Lucknow Bench of this Court being Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1996 which was dismissed on 2996 on the ground of alternative remedy. Against that order special appeal No. 427 of 1996 was filed which was decided on 2996 and the learned single Judge was directed to pass a fresh judgment. Since the matter is still pending before the learned single Judge after the remand order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 427 of 1996, it is evident that only the authorised controller could have taken action against petitioner and not any committee of management. Moreover in my opinion the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the contentions of the petitioner in the reply dated 81295, copy of which is Annexure 20 to the writ petition. In my opinion it is a requirement in a quasijudiicial order that the contentions of the parties should be dealt within the order impugned even if briefly. The impugned order does not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid letter dated 81295 at all and it merely states the conclusion of the Commission. In my opinion this vitiates the impugned order.

The averments of the petitioner that relevant documents were not supplied to her as stated in paras 42 and 43 of the writ petition are not controverted and hence have to be accepted. The further averments in paras 47 and 48 of the writ petition that the enquiry committee followed the peculiar procedure of preparing and issuing a questionnaire without supplying the same to the petitioner is also uncontroverted and in my opinion this also violates the principles of natural justice. Another illegality has pointed out in paras 52 to 55 of the writ petition. In para 52 of the petition the relevant part of the counteraffidavit of the Deputy Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1994 has been quoted and a perusal of the same show that the Deputy Director of Education was of the view that the then District Inspector of Schools Sarvajit Singh Verma was dishonest and he illegally granted recognition to Vinay Pal Singh Tomar as Manager. It is surprising that the papers were routed through the then District Inspector of Schools instead of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools as required by Regulation 6 of the punishment of Regulation.

For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23796 is quashed and the inquiry held by the enquiry committee and approved by the Manager Vinay Pal Singh Tomar, is held to be illegal. However, it will be open to the authorised controller to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on the basis of the said enquiry, the Commission can pass a fresh order in accordance with law under Section 21 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

The Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.