Smt. Rama Rathi vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar wherein resolution passed by Managing Committee of the institution placing the Petitioner under suspension on 15.02.2009 has been approved. Brief background of the case is that Smt. Rama Rathi, has been functioning as Principal of Arya Kanya Inter College, Sikandera Rao, District Mahamaya Nagar. Said institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The Managing Committee of the institution proceeded to place Smt. Rama Rathi, Respondent No. 3, under suspension on 15.02.2009, against which she represented the matter before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter fixed 24.02.2009 for hearing, but on that date no one appeared on behalf of the Committee of Management. Next date in the matter fixed was 27.02.2009, and thereafter, it was fixed for 04.03.2009. On 24.03.2009, District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass order. Said order dated 24.03.2009 was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23261 of 2009 by the Committee of Management and this Court on 06.05.2009 proceeded to pass following order:

The fact of the matter is that in the present case on mere surmises and conjectures entire documentary evidence produced by the Management have not at all been considered and examined by the District Inspector of School, and the impugned order has been passed without giving thoughtful considerations, which were required to be done while proceeding to pass order either according approval or refusing to accord approval to the order of suspension passed by the Managing Committee against the Principal of the institution. For this purposes, the District Inspector of Schools was required to see as to whether prerequisite terms and conditions as envisaged u/s 16-G(5)(a), (b), (c) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 were in existence or not, which impelled the Management to take decision for placing Smt. Rama Rathi under suspension. The District Inspector of Schools is not required to go into the merits of the charges, as merits of the charges are to be examined by the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, the District Inspector of Schools has not taken any serious exercise and has totally overstepped his jurisdiction by straight-away, as such order impugned is unsustainable.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.03.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar for being decided afresh by means of reasoned and speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording opportunity of hearing to the Manager of the Managing Committee and the Principal Smt. Rama Rathi, keeping in view the provisions of Section 16-G(5)(a), (b), (c) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921.

In the present case, order of suspension was passed on 15.02.2009, more than 60 days period have expired, and as suspension has not yet been approved, as such same has become inoperative till fresh orders are passed on the same by the District Inspector of schools. In this background, Smt. Rama Rathi would be entitled to her full salary till fresh orders are passed by the District Inspector of Schools, either approving or disapproving the resolution, as the case may be.

Thereafter District Inspector of Schools on 02.06.2009 fixed 08.06.2009 and thereafter next date fixed was 15.06.2009 and thereafter next date fixed was 20.06.2009 and thereafter 23.06.2009 was the date fixed and thereafter District Inspector of Schools proceeded to note down the written submission filed on behalf of Management; written submission filed on behalf of Principal of the the institution and therein reply qua each charges has also been submitted in detail including the reply in respect of supplementary charge sheet dated 12.03.2009 and thereafter District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to pass order by recording finding that Principal has spent amount of Rs. 1,62,644.00 against rules and further proceeded to record finding that Petitioner has spent Rs. 1,87,745.50/- against rules and further proceeded to record finding that Petitioner has committed various irregularities, in this background has approved the resolution of suspension.

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 Vashistha 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 charges have no substance 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, as such order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.

Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken into the matter and no interference should be made by this Court and once suspension has been disapproved and period of 60 days has expired then suspension order is of no consequence.

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 UPLBEC 226 (1) 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 set out fact of the present case are being adverted to. In the present case it would be writ apparent that this Court on the last occasion while passing order dated 06.09.2009 has clearly made it clear that District Inspector of Schools was not at all required to go into the merit of the charges as merit of the charges are required to be examined by the Inquiry Officer and the District Inspector of Schools is required to see as to whether pre-requisite terms and condition as is envisaged u/s 16-G(5) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 were in existence or not which impelled the Management to take decision for placing Smt. Rama Rathi under suspension. District Inspector of Schools, in the present case as is reflected from the impugned order has acted, as disciplinary authority and has exercised authority vested u/s 21 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 as District Inspector of Schools was not at entitled in law to record finding of guilt while proceeding to consider the matter for according approval to the suspension. In the present case District Inspector of Schools has clearly overstepped and transgressed its authority.

District Inspector of Schools was obliged to examine the validity of the suspension order on the basis of document which has been supplied to him under Chapter III Regulation 39 of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and based on the said documents District Inspector of Schools was required 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 and as to whether action taken is not motivated one and is bonafide action. District Inspector of Schools was not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not and that to on the material supplied thereon. The issue in that regard has to examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Petitioner. District Inspector of Schools has not at all taken any such exercise qua the material forwarded to him alongwith resolution of suspension in exercise of its authority vested u/s 16-G(7) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 rather has proceeded to go on the merits of the charges. Reason given cannot be approved of in the facts of case. District Inspector of Schools has to take decision objectively by recording reason keeping in view the parameters as laid in three decision quoted above, specially by Division Bench of this Court in the case case of Tejnarain Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (4) ESC 2301 (DB).

Consequently writ petition is allowed. Order dated 18.07.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar is hereby quashed and set side. District Inspector of Schools, Mahamaya Nagar 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 Principal 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 expire of period of sixty days has become inoperative of 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,

Apart from this in the present case Committee of Management of the institution has contended that disciplinary proceedings has been concluded and papers have been transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools and District Inspector of Schools in its turn transmitted the papers to U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and said papers were incomplete as such said papers have been returned back. Committee of Management submits that entire papers has been re-submitted to District Inspector of Schools on 05.09.2010 followed by reminder dated 10.05.2010. District Inspector of Schools is directed to examine the said papers in respect of resolution of punishment in consonance of provision as contained under U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for approval of Punishment) Regulation 1985 and in case it is found that the said papers are in order, then said papers be transmitted to U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad who shall thereafter take decision preferably within next three months from the date of receipt of record after providing opportunity of hearing to Petitioner as well as Committee of Management of the institution. In case District Inspector of Schools finds that said papers are not in order then whatever the short comings, are there qua the same information be furnished to Committee of Management so that they may do needful in the matter and thereafter further followed action is taken afresh.

No orders as to cost.