JANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BAIJ NATH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the manager of Hiralal Memorial Intermediate College, Bhaurauli, in the District of Azamgarh. The respondent was the principal of the College. On December 14, 1963 the respondent drew from the Boys' Fund of the college two sums of Rs. 189 for payment of scholarship to the, two Harijan students for the period from May to November 1963. On withdrawal of the monies he sent to the Harijan Tatha Samaj Kalyan Adhikari a form called Form No.14 containing a receipt of the scholarship signed by the two students and countersigned by himself. The Adhikari wrote to the appellant informing him of the complaint made by the students that in spite of the submission of Form No. 14 they had not received the scholarship. On March 24, 1964 the District Inspector of Schools visited the College and on finding that the scholarships had not been paid called for an explanation for non-payment. On April 10, 1964 the appellant forwarded the Inspector's letter of March 24 to the respondent and asked him to give an explanation. The respondent sent a reply stating that payments were made to the students on March 31, 1964 and that the delay in payment was due to the absence of the students from the College and the fact that the register on which receipts had to be obtained were with the Inspector from December 8, 1963 to March 10, 1964. A meeting of the managing committee was called on April 14, 1964 to consider the Inspectors letter and the respondent's explanation. According to the appellant, on April 19, 1964 the managing committee met and resolved to take disciplinary action against the respondent. On April 21, 1964 the appellant passed an order suspending the respondent pending the inquiry. The order stated that it was passed in exercise of the power vested in the appellant by the rules and the resolution of the managing committee dated April 19, 1964. A copy of the resolution was attached. On April 24, 1964 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad praying for appropriate writs quashing the order of suspension. He alleged that the appellant had no authority to pass the order and that the order was made in bad faith. On the same date the respondent obtained an ex parte order from the High Court staying the operation of the suspension order. On July 22, 1964 after hearing both the parties the High Court vacated the stay order. On December 25, 1964 the appellant served a charge sheet on the respondent. Charge No. (IV) was as follows:

(2.) The conditions of service of the teachers in the College are governed by Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U. P. Act II of 1921) and the Regulations framed thereunder. Regulations 31 to 45 provide for punishment, inquiry and suspension. The Committee of Management is the punishing authority. The punishments of dismissal, removal, discharge and reduction in rank and diminution in emoluments require prior approval of the Inspector. If it is decided to take disciplinary action against an employee, the inquiry is made by an authority appointed by the committee. The ground on which it is proposed to take action is reduced in the form of definite charges. The charges are communicated to the employee, who is required to submit a written statement of his defence. If the employee or the inquiring authority so desires, an oral inquiry takes place. The inquiring authority then makes a report. On receipt of the report the punishing authority takes its decision on the case. On receipt of the decision of the committee the Inspector gives his decision. The Committee then implements the decision of the Inspector. The Regulations indicate definite time limits for the communication of the charge, submission of the written statement of defence, completion of the inquiry, the making of the report by the inquiring authority, the taking of decisions by the punishing authority and the Inspector and the implementation of the decision. Pending the inquiry and final orders the employee may be suspended by the committee. The power of suspension may be exercised by the manager if it is delegated to him under the rules of the institution. The employee under suspension is paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to half his pay.

(3.) The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to lake action against him. The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court. But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority. The civil or criminal court has no such power. The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding. The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains a stay a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court. In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers.