Saroj Chandra Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—In the present case petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as Teacher. Institution in question is governed by the provision as contained under U.P. Act No. II of 1921. In the institution concerned petitioner has been sought to be placed under suspension vide order dated 11.02.2009 by the Manager Sarvodya Inter College Kishanpur Fatehpur.Questioning the validity of the aforesaid order present writ petition in question has been filed and then it was pointed out that order passed by Managing Committee of the institution qua suspension, has been approved by District Inspector of Schools in exercise of its authority vested u/s 16-G(5) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 then by means of amendment application said order in question has been subject matter of challenge.Amendment has been allowed and averments mentioned therein from part of the pleadings.

Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, contended with vehemence that in the present case District Inspector of Schools has transgressed its authority vested u/s 16-G (7) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, by recording finding that case for approval has been made out without looking in to the papers submitted by the Committee of Management of the institution under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of U.P. Act No. II of 1921, and without adverting to the issues raised by petitioner, as such order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

Countering the said submission, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, Advocate on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken into the matter and no interference should be made by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, authority of District Inspector of Schools while passing order under Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 is being looked into on the parameters settled by this Court.

The question as to whether the District Inspector of Schools is required to pass a reasoned order while granting approval or disapproval to the suspension order under Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is no longer res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura Distt. Vallia v. District Inspector of Schools and Anr. 1988 (1) UPLBEC 226 has held as under:

As discussed earlier, a District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G acts in a supervisory capacity, and his decision may have adversely by his order invariably comes to Court, he must record brief reasons for according or refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension passed by a Committee of Management although a detailed judgment is not required. In the present case the District Inspector of Schools has disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management without giving any reason whatsoever. In absence of any reason, this Court is unable to find fault with the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending respondent No. 2. Therefore, the order of the District Inspector of Schools must be held to be illegal and arbitrary.

It has been held by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tejnarain Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (4) ESC 2301 (DB), as under:

We are of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools while exercising the power u/s 16-G (7) has only to examine on prima facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal.

This Court in the case of Smt. Nirmal Saxena v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2009 (1) ESC 428 (All) (DB) after following the judgment in the case of Tejnarain Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (4) ESC 2301 (DB) has held as under.

In view of the Division Bench decisions of this Court supra, we are of the considered opinion that recording of reasons while approving or disapproving the suspension order is sine-qua-non and if no reasons are recorded by the District Inspector of Schools the order would be vitiated and cannot be upheld.

On the parameter as mentioned above order passed by District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur dated 11.02.2009 has been perused. District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to mention that parties were asked to put forth their version vide order dated 01.04.2009. On 04.04.2009 hearing took place then District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to mention that on the basis of arguments advanced and evidence adduced, suspension order which has been passed is appropriate and is being approved. Once parties to the dispute have been heard and raised their respective arguments then reasons ought to have been indicated as to why suspension was being approved of. No reasons have been given as to why he was finding the action of suspension to be appropriate. Requisite exercise has not been undertaken and order dated 11.02.2009 reflects that in casual manner order has been passed.

Consequently Order dated 11.02.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur is hereby quashed and set side. District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur is directed to re-examine the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order preferably within next six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the nominee of Management. As approval order has been set aside, the net effect of the same would be that suspension order after expiry of period of sixty days has become inoperative by operation of law, and petitioner would be as such entitled to function and receive salary and same shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by District Inspector of Schools as per dictum of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Bhusan Mishra v. D.I.O.S. 1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 , and followed in the case of The Committee of Management Vidya Bhawan Inter College Vs. The State of U.P. and Others,

This much has also been accepted that till date disciplinary proceedings have not been completed as such as petitioner has specifically contended that he will extend all possible cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings so undertaken as such respondents are directed to complete disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law following the provision as contained under Regulation of Chapter III U.P. Act No. II of 1921.

With the above direction, present writ petition is allowed.

No orders as to cost.