LAWS(ALL)-1992-7-48

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VASU DEV MISHRA HIHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANPUR REGION

Decided On July 23, 1992
Committee Of Management Vasu Dev Mishra Hiher Secondary School Appellant
V/S
Deputy Director Of Education Kanpur Region Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VASU Deo Mishra, Higher Secondary School Ashoka Nagar Kanpur is a recognised and aided non -government Higher Secondary School, affairs of which are managed by a Committee of Management of which Petitioner no. 2 is the Manager.

(2.) SRI Narendra Kumar Sengar was appointed Head Master of the School in the year 1977. It appears that he was caught in a web of controversy on many counts which require to be delineated in the succeeding paras of the judgment. In the First instance, the Committee of Management had interdicted about the school building being used by the University of Kanpur to held its examination, but the Respondent No. 5, it is alleged, allowed the premises to be used by the University for holding its Examination regardless of the prohibition of the Committee of Management and it is alleged, he realised a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - from the University and the students but did not deposit the same in the school funds. It is also alleged in the petition that Sri N.K. Sengar is facing trial in the criminal case for the offences under Section 395, 425, 147, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Aba Purwa Kanpur Nagar. Further allegations in the petition are that a Sub Audit Team appointed by Education Department of the U.P. Government on inspection of the School records, detected financial irregularities and misappropriation and misutilisation of funds etc. For all these reasons, the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution in its meeting held on 17 -9 -1989 to launch disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 5. He was placed under suspension pursuant to the said resolution by order dated 18 -9 -1989 but as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the suspension was not approved of by the District Inspector of Schools and accordingly, it stood lapsed by efflux of time i.e. 60 days period as stipulated under the provisions of Section 16 -G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The suspension of the Respondent No. 5 having automatically lapsed by efflux of time the Committee of Management resolved and prohibited the Respondent No. 5, by means of the letter dated 17 -11 -1989 (Annexure 3) from entering the school premises except in connection with the disciplinary enquiry which was going on against him and that too with prior permission of the Management. However, it was stated in categorical terms in the said letter dated 17 -11 -89 ' that the Respondent no 2 would be paid his salary on month to month basis. These measures, it is as alleged, were taken in the interest of the institution in view of the apprehension looming large that the Respondent no 5 might temper with the records and suborn the evidence having bearing on the disciplinary proceedings under -way against him. It is also alleged that the enquiry was concluded exparte by reason of the fact that the Respondent No. 5 did not participate in the enquiry qua the fact that opportunity was afforded to him, and the papers forwarded to the U..P. Secondary Education Services Commission soliciting its approval under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 for dismissed of the Respondent No. 5 from service, in pursuance of the resolution dated 10 -1 -90. The papers are said to have been forwarded to the Commission under Rule 5 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (procedure for approval of arrangement) Regulation, 1985 on 23 -1 -1990. It would transpire that in view of strained relations between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5, an incident took place in the college premises on 27 -1 -1989 whereupon a First Information Report was lodged at the police station concerned and consequently, proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC were Initiated An order of attachment of school property was passed by the Magistrate on 17 -1 -1990. The said order was challenged in the High Court by means of a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The petition was allowed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 25 -4 -1990 and the Magistrate's order dated 17 -1 -90 was quashed. While quashing the proceedings under Section 145/146 CrPC the High Court, it is alleged, made certain observations adverting therein to the question as to whether the Headmaster had resumed his duties after suspension period or not. The Respondent No. 5, feeling aggrieved by the High Court's order went up to the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave petition. The Supreme Court by its order dated 13 -3 -90, affirmed the Court's order to the extent it related to quashing of proceedings under Section 145/146 CrPC but it set aside that part of the order which pertained to the resumption of duties by 5th respondent after the suspension period, relegating it to the appropriate forum to decide the controversy as and when such controversy comes up before such appropriate forum. The Distt. Inspector of Schools considering himself to be the appropriate authority/forum, issued an order on 1 -2 -91 directing the Manager not to take work of the office of Head of the Institution from any person other than the Respondent No. 5, Narendra Kumar Sengar. The same very direction was repeated by the inspector be meant of the letter dated 30 -6 -92. It is the order contained in the letter dated 30 -6 -92 which is sought to be quashed by means of the petition in hand.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned order basically on the ground that the Management of the Institution has a right to take or not to take work from the Respondent No. 5 for whose dismissal from service, by way of punishment, papers had been forwarded to the Secondary Education Services Commission for approval under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982, and so long as the management of the institution is willing to pay -full salary to the Respondent no 5, the Distt. Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to issue another or direction obligating on the Petitioners to take work from the Respondent No. 5 and restraining them from taking work of office of Head of the Institution from any other teacher. Sri J.N. Tiwari contended before me that there is no such provision either under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 or in the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 empowering the Distt. Inspector of Schools to issue any such direction as is contained in the impugned order dated 30 -6 -1992. The contention of Sri J N. Tiwari is that with the enforcement of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Selection Boards Act 1982, the Distt. Inspector of Schools has ceased to have any role to play in matter like the one in hand and it is now the commission which can give appropriate advice to the management.