MOHAMMAD REHAN Vs. REGIONAL SECRETARY, BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BAREILLY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 18-1-1989 passed by respondent No. 1 (&Regional Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education Regional Office, Bareilly thereby debarring the petitioner from all the remuneration work of the Board for three years.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is delineated in a short compass. The petitioner, who is the Vice-Principal of Falah-O-Darain Higher Secondary School, Kath Darwaza, Moradabad, was appointed Centre Superintendent, for High School and Intermediate Examinations, 1988, vide order dated 27-7-1988, annexed to the petitioner as Annexure No.1. By means of a notice dated 17-5-1988, he was called upon to show cause as to why action be not taken against him for his misconduct referred to in the notice. The misconduct for which the petitioner was called upon to show cause consists of the allegations that his son namely, Mohd. Zeeshan, a class 4 employee of the College, was sent in another college to perform the work as an Invigilator, and while deputing him to perform the duties as invigilator, he was shown as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid College. It is also alleged in the notice that in the college, where the aforesaid Mohd. Zeeshan was to work as invigilator, another son of the petitioner namely, Mohd. Kamran was appearing as a Private Candidate in the Board's High School Examination, 1988. The petitioner put in a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice vide reply dated 29-5-1988. In paragraph 2 of the said reply, it has been conceded by the petitioner that Mohd. Zeeshan, class-4 employee of Falah-O-Darain Higher Secondary School, was sent to work as invigilator under special circumstances in consultation with the concerned Centre Superintendent of the college, on account of the fact that strength of the teachers to work as invigilator was inadequate. It is in consequence of the above that the impugned order dated 18-1-1989 was passed debarring the petitioner from remuneration work of the Board for three years excepting the year in question namely the year 1988. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of the present petition.

(3.) The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had sent his son not as an Invigilator but as an Attendant and that his reply was not considered and the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice without taking into account the explanation given by him. To my considered view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the reply as stated supra, was not to the effect that his son was sent as to perform his duties as an Attendant. Rather the reply to the show-cause notice does indicate that the aforesaid Mohd. Zeeshan, son of the petitioner, though a Class-4 employee, was sent to work as Invigilator showing him as an Assistant Teacher in the college under special circumstances taking refuge behind the plea that teachers were under staffed. Reverting to the impugned order, the aforesaid order clearly mentions that the petitioner was adjudged guilty of the charges levelled against him after due consideration of the entire materials. It would be useful to state that the impugned order was passed by the Board on the recommendation of the committee constituted under Chapter VI-B of the Regulations made in U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.