Naseem Ahmad vs State of U. P. and others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner questioning the validity of order dated 24.3.2009 passed by Managing Committee of Muslim Inter College, Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

Brief background of the case is that in the District of Moradabad there is an institution known as Muslim Inter College, Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. Said institution is recognised by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. One Munna Singh, the permanent Principal, retired from service on 30.6.2008, giving rise to substantive vacancy in the office of the Principal. Applications were invited and thereafter selection proceeding was held and therein petitioner was selected and his appointment was even approved under Section 16FF of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 read with Chapter II, Regulation 17 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 and appointment letter was issued on 25.12.2008. Thereafter, petitioner joined the institution. Petitioner has contended that the President of the institution was interested in getting some one else selected, as such Writ Petition No. 63186 of 2008, was got filed, questioning the validity of selection and appointment of petitioner, but no interim order was passed by this Court in that writ petition. Petitioner has contended that thereafter complaint was sought to be set up against petitioner and then preliminary enquiry was conducted into the allegations levelled against petitioner and report was submitted. Thereafter, resolution was passed on 19.3.2009 dispensing with the services of the petitioner. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

Counteraffidavit has been filed by the management justifying the action taken. Rejoinderaffidavit has been filed disputing the averments made in the counteraffidavit and reiterating those made in the writ petition. After exchange of pleadings, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal of the writ petition with the consent of the parties.

Sri Irsad Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present, case order impugned has been passed without undertaking any regular departmental enquiry proceeding. Services of the petitioner has been dispensed with by passing stigmatic and punitive order, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Countering the said submission, Sri Prasant Kumar, Advocate, on the other hand, contended that rightful action has been taken in the matter and no interference is required by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which emerges in the present case is that the institution in question is minority institution known as Muslim Inter College. In the said institution, petitioner had been appointed as Principal and his appointment was duly approved by the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad on 22.12.2008 and thereafter, appointment letter had been issued, and petitioner had been performing and discharging duties. While petitioner was continuing in service, qua his functioning, complaint had beeri made and thereafter based on the same preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted. Said enquiry report was placed before the General Body and the General Body in its turn passed resolution dispensing with the services of petitioner, and accordingly order of dispensation of service has been passed. The impugned order dated 24.3.2009 has been perused; made reflects that the order dispensing with the services of petitioner is based on preliminary enquiry report. The allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioner are serious and they pertain to the conduct and character of the petitioner, and in this background before forming such a harsh opinion against the conduct and character of the petitioner, opportunity of hearing was necessary, and it would have been much more better if regular inquiry had been conducted as provided under

Chapter III, Regulations 35 to 37 of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Preliminary enquiry report reflects that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were correct that the petitioner had indulged in financial irregularities; he was characterless; he was not sincere towards his duty, and his removal was in the interest of the institution. The impugned order proceeds on the assumption that the charges were found to be proved in the preliminary enquiry. The order passed by the Management without holding any regular enquiry as envisaged under Chapter III, Regulations 35 to 37 of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 cannot be subscribed, as it is clearly stigmatic and punitive order.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 24.3.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, passing of this order will not prevent the Management to take action against the petitioner as provided under Chapter III, Regulations 35 to 37 of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Writ petition allowed.