KANHAIYA LAL Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTORS OF SCHOOL BAREILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURU Govind Singh Inter College, Bareilly briefly called the College, is a minority institution The petitioner was appointed clerk on permanent basis in the said institution. His services were terminated by an order contained in letter dated 5-7-1986 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the Manager of the College by way of punishment. The writ petition in hand seeks the quashing of the said order by means of a writ of certiorari and the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner in continuous service and pay the salary and other emoluments due to him.

(2.) THE facts necessary to high light the controversy involved in the 7ase, in so far as these facts are not in dispute, are these ; By letter dated c-2-1985 the principal of the College asked the petitioner to deposit in the relevant account of sum Rs. 3,923-48/- as per detail given therein. THE latter purports to have been issued on the premises that the amount referred to therein was the fees collected from the students by the class teachers and handed over to the petitioner to be deposited in the relevant account, but the petitioner failed to deposit the same ever since August, 1984. THE amount was allegedly embezzled by the petitioner. Accordingly he was not only asked to deposit the amount in the relevant account but was further called upon to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him. A copy of the letter was endorsed to the Manager of the College with a respect to take necessary action against the petitioner.

(3.) REGULATION 13 of Chapter-I of the REGULATIONs vests the power of appointment and punishment (including removal and dismissal) of Head Master, principal, teacher, Matron, clerk or librarian in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the REGULATIONs. REGULATION 28 of Chapter-Ill of the REGULATIONs provides that the Committee of Management shall not propose to the Inspector the termination of services of a confirmed employee unless resolution to this effect has been passed as its meeting specially convened for the purpose and by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, placed reliance upon the resolution dated 4-5-1985 passed by the Committee of Management authorising the Manager to constitute an Enquiry Committee to go into the financial irregularity alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, obtain its report and to take necessary action against the petitioner on the basis of such report. This resolution to my mind is of no avail. The power to terminate the services of the petitioner vests in the Committee of Management and in absence of any express provision in the Act or REGULATION made thereunder authorising the delegation of the power to the Manager the later had no authority in law to terminate the services of the petitioner. As a matter of fact the provisions enacted in REGULATION 28 of Chapter-Ill of the REGULATIONs impliedly prohibit the exercise of power of termination by Manager, for such a decision can be taken only in the meeting of the Committee of Management specially convened for the purpose and by two thirds majority of the members present and voting. Accordingly in absence of any Statutory provision regarding delegation of power, the resolution dated 4-5- 1985 authorising the Manager in advance to take necessary action against the petitioner impliedly there by to terminate the petitioner's services, if necessary, according to the report of the Enquiry Committee without a decision being taken in this regard by the Committee of Management in the manner prescribed by REGULATION 28 (supra), is ultra vires, illegal and void. The resolution did not in law confer any power upon the Manager to terminate the services of the petitioner even if it be assumed or held that the enquiry was held fairly in tune with the principles of natural justice and the report warranted termination of the petitioner's services.