RAJBALA Vs. DIRECTOR VIDYALAYI SHIKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Committee of Management, which has filed the instant Special Appeal, had initiated action against Yashvir Singh Saini - respondent No.3. While doing so, respondent No. 3 had been placed under suspension. Consequent thereupon, a charge sheet was issued to him, which culminated in the passing of the order of termination. In terms of the mandatory provisions, before implementing the aforesaid order of termination issued against respondent No. 3, the matter was referred to the District Education Officer, Haridwar for his approval. THE District Education Officer, Haridwar by an order dated 12.05.2008 declined to approve the order of termination of respondent No. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant herein approached this Court, so as to assail the order dated 12.05.2008, by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 357 of 2008.

(2.) DURING the pendency of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 357 of 2008, the appellant herein, i.e. the Committee of Management, was substituted by another Committee of Management. The new Committee of Management was desirous of accepting the order passed by the District Education Officer, Haridwar dated 12.05.2008. Accordingly, all the earlier orders passed by the instant appellant, i.e. the erstwhile Committee of Management, against Yashvir Singh Saini - respondent No. 3 were revoked.

(3.) DESPITE having concluded as above, in so far as the merits of the instant appeal are concerned, it is apparent that the action taken by the erstwhile Committee of Management against respondent No. 3 - Yashvir Singh Saini was based primarily on two considerations. Firstly, that his induction into the service of the Janta Junior High School, Majari Gummawala, District Haridwar was based on a forged certificate. Secondly, respondent No. 3 - Yashvir Singh Saini had been proceeded against on a charge of embezzlement, which had been substantiated. The aforesaid two issues are of substantial significance. Political considerations dividing one managing committee from the other cannot be a valid justification at the hands of a successor committee to condone delinquency of the nature referred to above. In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that liberty should be granted to the appellant herein to prefer a representation to the Secretary, Department of Education, Uttarakhand by bringing to his notice the entire sequence of events, including the evidence which was taken into consideration in the departmental inquiry to substantiate the charges against respondent No. 3 - Yashvir Singh Saini, if the appellant is so advised, within one month from today. In case such a representation is made, the Secretary, Department of Education, Uttarakhand shall consider the same in accordance with law. However, if any adverse order is to be passed against respondent No. 3 - Yashvir Singh Saini, it will be imperative for the Secretary, Department of Education, Uttarakhand to afford him an opportunity of hearing in consonance with the rules of natural justice.