COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions question the validity of the order dated 23.7.2005 as communicated by the Secretary of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Selection Board, Allahabad dated 2.8.2005, whereby the proposal of the termination of Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Principal of Yogananand Ram Narain Vaidic Inter College, Badaun has been turned down and the proposal of termination has been substituted by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. The Committee of management has filed writ petition No. 57071 of 2005 assailing the order to the extent it rejects the proposal of termination and writ petition No.58075 of 2005 has been filed by the delinquent employee Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta challenging the punishment awarded by the Board by stopping of his two increments.

(2.) I have heard Sri Radhey Shayam, learned counsel for the petitioner/ Management, Sri P.C.Sharma, Advocate for the Principal Sri S.C.Gupta and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav for the Secondary Education Board.

(3.) Sri Radhey Shayam has urged that once the Board was satisfied that the charges of financial irregularities against the Principal were proved, it was not open to the Board to substitute the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management. On the other hand, Sri P.C.Sharma has urged that the finding recorded by the Board against the petitioner is wholly unjustified as the Board has failed to consider the material on record, and as such has arrived at a total wrong conclusion. Thus both the adversaries to the litigation are dis-satisfied with the order passed by the Board. It is urged that the Board could not have arrived at a conclusion, which reflects a sort of compromise to some how the other end the dispute. The Committee contended that once the charges were found to have been proved, there was no justification for awarding a lessor punishment. The employee contends that once the Board was satisfied that the ultimate punishment of termination was unwarranted then the Board ought to have simply disapproved the action and not awarded the punishment on its own.