PARASU RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4 - Committee of Management, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) This writ petition questions the validity of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad dated 31.3.2013 approving the proposal of suspension of the petitioner on the strength of the allegations as indicated in the impugned order coupled with the facts stated in the resolution dated 18.12.2011 passed by the Committee of Management for suspending the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools has also recorded that the resolution has been passed with the approval of 12 out of 14 members of the Committee of Management and since the allegations made against the petitioner are prima facie serious, therefore, the suspension order is being approved.

(3.) The background of the case is that the petitioner was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board and was appointed as Principal with his placement in the respondent no.4 - Institution on 20th July, 2011. The petitioner thereafter resumed charge and started functioning. After about three months, the Committee of Management proceeded to level certain charges against the petitioner including charges of financial irregularities, and accordingly, resolved to suspend him on 18th of December, 2011. The said resolution was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on 23rd June, 2012 against which the respondent - Committee of Management filed writ petition no. 34443 of 2012. The same was allowed and the matter was remitted back vide judgment dated 1.8.2012 calling upon the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to the validity of the meeting in which the resolution was passed, and further to examine the affidavits that were filed by three persons referred to in the said judgment. The petitioner was allowed to function and receive his salary as Principal and it was further provided that his continuance would be dependent on the decision to be so taken by the District Inspector of Schools.