MAHENDRA PAL Vs. UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on probation at the Munna Lal Higher Secondary School, Wazirganj, District Budaun. According to respondent no. 3 the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year and subsequently the petitioner was confirmed as a teacher in due time. On 27th of March, 1961 at the instance of the Management admittedly the petitioner interviewed the District Inspector of Schools. On the 18th of Aug., 1961 the Committee of Management, respondent no 3 passed a resolution deciding to seek the approval of the District Inspector of Schools for termination of the services of the petitioner. By an order dated 17-10-61 respondent no. 2, District Inspector of Schools accorded the approval sought for by the Committee of Management and on the 27th of Oct., 1961 an order was passed removing the petitioner from the service of respondent no. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the action taken against him which was dismissed by the Regional Appellate Committee. Thereafter the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No. 2200 of 1962 challenged the order of the Regional Appellate Committee in this Court. By a judgment of a learned single Judge dated 4th of Nov., 1968 the Writ Petition was allowed and the order of the Regional Appellate Committee dated 25th of April, 1962 was quashed. As a consequence of the judgment of this Court the appeal preferred by the petitioner went back for decision to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education by means of the impugned order partly allowed the appeal. The order of the petitioner's removal was upheld suit the management was directed to pay to the petition his salary for the period during which he had remained unemployed elsewhere. By means of this petition the petitioner challenges the legality of the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, respondent no. 1.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the standing counsel and in our opinion the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is unsustainable. Three charges were framed against the petitioner which had led to the petitioner's removal from service. The first charge was to the effect that on the 27th of March, 1961 the teacher sent a representation to the District Inspector of Schools directly and when the Principal Incharge required him to furnish him with a copy of representation he declined to do so. The above action of the petitioner was alleged to amount to insubordination. The second charge was that in the Summer Vacation the petitioner left for his home without informing the Manager the address where he would spend vacation. The bird charge was to the effect that on the 18th of Sept., 1959 while he was incharge of the office of Head of the Institution a strike by the students took place in which he proved inefficient and incompetent to maintain discipline. The Deputy Director of Education has found that the third charge which was the most serious one had remained unproved. Deputy Director of Education has held that the petitioner was junior most teacher in the School and the Head of the Institution acted improperly in going on leave by handing over charge of his office to him. The second-charge was also been found by the Deputy Director of Education not having been proved. As far as the first charge is concerned the petitioners contention was that he had met the District Inspector of Schools under the instructions of the Management of the Committee and he submitted the written explanation to the District Inspector of School Is when he was required to do so. He admitted that he had failed to deliver to the Management Committee a copy of his representation to the District Inspector of Schools In the counter-affidavit it has been admitted on behalf of respondent no. 3 that the petitioner met the District Inspector of Schools because he was directed to do so, since the District Inspector of Schools had expressed a desire to interview the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education has however, held that there was no written permission given to the petitioner by the Committee of Management to interview the District Inspector 01 Schools. It has been found by the Director of Education that there set ms to be substance in the petitioners allegations that the Management had instigated him to interview the District Inspector of Schools only with a view to implicate him in charges of misconduct. In spite of the fact that it has been admitted by the Committee of Management that the petitioner had been orally directed to see the District Inspector of Schools at his own bequest, the Deputy Director of Education has held that it was not proper for the petitioner to have met the District Inspector of Schools without obtaining written permission of the Committee of Management. It has been held that the petitioners having made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools was unjustified and his refusal to deliver to the .Management a copy thereof was also undesirable. While dealing with the charges against the petitioner the Deputy Director of Education has made the following observations which may be usefully quoted here:-

(3.) A Division Bench of this court in Kanhaiya Lal Tripathi Vs. U.P. Shikaba Nideshak and others, (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7170 decided on 28th March. 1978) has held that though it may be improper for an employee of an Educational Institution to approach the office of the Department or other Government dignatories such action did not amount to insubordination and did not justify either dismissal or the removal from the services of a teacher in compliance with Regulation 32 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. intermediate Education Act.