COMMITTE OF MANAGEMENT SRI KRISHNA MERCHANT ASSOCIATION INTER COLLEGE Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this writ petition it is necessary to summarise the facts briefly The Respondent No 3 is said to have been the Headmaster of the institution in question till the year 1973 When the institution was raised to the status of Intermediate College, he preferred his claim for the post of Principal of the College and is said to have obtained a resolution from the erstwhile committee of management in his favour appointing him as Principal of the College. This order was said to have been set aside by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 16E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, hereinafter called as 'the Act.' This order seems to have been challenged by the Respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 13515 of 1981. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-2-1986. The Respondent No. 3 seems to have lost in the Supreme Court also as his Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was dismissed on 31-7-1986. The institution is said to be headed by the Principal selected by the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 3 does not seem to have reconciled to his defeat in the writ petition, therefore, he is said to have neither taken the classes assigned to him nor did obey the orders of the Principal or the Manager of the institution. The Respondent No. 3 was thereafter placed under suspension by the Manager of the committee of management on 2-3- 1988. The committee of management by a resolution authorised the Principal to serve the chargesheet and obtain approval of suspension order from the District Inspector of Schools. Copy of the order of suspension is placed on the record.

(2.) The District Inspector of Schools, Nainital has raided some objection to the order of suspension of the Respondent No 3 under the impression that the said order was not supported by a resolution of the committee of management. After removal of his doubts the District Inspector of Schools approved the suspension of the Respondent No. 3 on 18-3-1988. Copy of this order is placed on record. The Respondent No. 3 was served with a chargesheet on 14-3-1988 by the Principal of the College in exercise of the authority vested in him by the resolution of the managing committee dated 29-2-1988. The Respondent No. 3 is said to have challenged the authority of the Principal to issue the chargesheet. However, he did not submit any reply to the substance of the articles of the chargesheet; He asked to participate in the enquiry and appear before the committee of management and place his view point before it. The Respondent No. 3 refused to submit his reply. The, enquiry was thereafter completed exparte by the enquiry officer, who submitted his report to the President of the committee of management. Copy of the report dated 29-5-1988 is placed on the record of this writ petition. The report is said to have been placed before the committee of management on 30-5-1988. The committee of management thereupon passed a resolution for removal of the Respondent No. 3 from service which needed obtaining of approval from the authority concerned. Copy of the resolution was sent to the District Inspector of School on 4-6-1988 for being forwarded to the Respondent No. 2 as required under law. The Respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools, does not seem to have forwarded the proposal for removal of the Respondent No. 3 from service to the Respondent No. 2, though he was required to forward the same within thirty days from the date of its receipt. The Respondent No. 1 is said to have directed the committee of management to reinstate the Respondent No. 3 in service by his letter dated 22-12-1988, a copy of which is placed on the record. The Respondent No. 1 is said to have been requested that he was bound to send the papers for removal of the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2. There is a communication dated 4-1-1989 addressed by the committee of management to the District Inspector of Schools in this regard. The Respondent No. 1 thereafter is said to have passed an order for reinstatement of the Petitioner which is impugned in this writ petition. The Respondent No 1 thereafter passed another order for single operation of the payment of the salary on 17-5-1989, which is also impugned in this writ petition. The impugned orders are contained in Annexure 11 and 14 respectively to the writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the Petitioner that* before passing the order of single operation no opportunity was given to the Petitioner and the bills prepared for the salary of the teachers were returned by the Respondent No 1 on the ground that full salary bills ought to have been prepared. The order of single operation is said to be bad because the Respondent No. 1 has failed to forward the papers for the removal of the Respondent No. 3 within thirty days to the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is said to have failed to perform his statutory duties. The impugned order dated 17-5-1989 is said to have been passed because the Respondent No. 3 had threatened 'to observe a fast until death which would amount to pressurisation and undue influence upon the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner submits that this order was illegal and for its non compliance single operation was passed for payment of salary etc. The impugned orders are said to be without jurisdiction and are challenged on a number of grounds.