COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT BISHAMBHAR SHARAN VAIDIC INTER COLLEGE JASPUR NAINTAL JAIPAL SINGH Vs. U P SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION:U P SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Committee of Management of Bishambhar Shanna Vaidic Inter College, Baspur, Nainital and one of the members of the Committee of Management, who are the appellants 1 and 2 respectively have challenged the judgment and order dated 31/3/1993 of the High court of Allahabad passed in Writ Petition No. 28663 of 1991. Appellant 1 had framed charges against Respondent 3, who was the Principal of the said college on the basis of the prima facie case made out against him and had asked him for his explanation for the said charges. Respondent 3 submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Committee which was appointed by the Committee of Management and contested the charges levelled against him. On the evidence produced before it, the Enquiry Committee found the charges proved and forwarded its report to the 1st appellant, Committee of Management. The Committee of Management thereupon issued a show-cause notice to Respondent 3 and asked for his explanation on the charges which were proved. Since it did not receive any explanation from Respondent 3, the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 12/10/1989 terminating his services. A copy of the said resolution, along with a copy each of the report of the Enquiry Committee and other relevant documents, was forwarded by the appellant Committee to the Commission as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (the 'act') for the approval of the termination of the services of Respondent 3. The Commission went through the report of the Enquiry Committee and the evidence on which it was based and found that the charges were not proved. The Commission also found that the inquiry was vitiated because the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Committee but by the Committee of Management and hence the Enquiry Committee had violated principles of natural justice and the proceedings before the Enquiry Committee were mala fide. The Commission, therefore, did not approve of the action of the Committee of Management terminating the services of Respondent 3.

(2.) The appellants filed a writ petition in the High court challenging the said order of the Commission on two grounds, viz. , (i) that the finding of the Commission that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Committee but by the Committee of Management was erroneous and (ii) that the Commission could not have gone into the merits of the case as it had done. The High court allowed the writ petition on the latter ground and gave liberty to the Management to hold fresh inquiry in effect confirming the first ground on which the Commission had disapproved the finding of the Enquiry Committee and observing that when the inquiry was vitiated in its entirety the Commission ought not to have gone into the merits of the findings. Against this order of the High court, the present appeal has been preferred. While allowing the writ petition, however, the High court directed the petitioners (appellants herein) to reinstate Respondent 3 as the Principal of the said college on the same salary as he was drawing and also permitted the appellants to take action, if any, against Respondent 3 in accordance with law.

(3.) This order of the High court is also challenged by Respondent 3 by filing a separate special leave petition, viz. Special Leave Petition No. 8834 of 1992.