RAM AUTAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Shri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Shri Rishikesh Tripathi on behalf of the petitioner. Standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Birendra Singh on behalf of respondent No. 3.

(2.) COUNSEL present for the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage. Petitioner Ram Autar Verma was working as Principal in Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Banda (hereinafter to be referred to as an 'Institution'). The said institution is aided and recognized under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. In respect of certain allegations noticed against the Principal of the institution he was placed under suspension pending enquiry under resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21.2.2006. In accordance with the provisions Section 16G (6) read with 16G (7) of the Intermediate Education Act relevant papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Banda for necessary approval of the suspension so effected. The District Inspector of Schools, Banda by means of the order dated 20.4.2006 disapproved the suspension which was effected by the Committee of Management. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Banda the Committee of Management filed Writ Petition No. 23798/06. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble single Judge vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2006. The Committee of Management not being satisfied filed Special Appeal No. 526/06 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2006 allowed the appeal filed by the Committee of Management. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Banda was set-aside and District Inspector of Schools was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the observations made by the Division Bench in a time bound manner. It is worthwhile to reproduce the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which reads as follows :

(3.) SHRI Birendra Singh on behalf of Committee of Management states that ample opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Committee of Management which the petitioner did not avail. Even otherwise suspension pending enquiry does not require any opportunity of hearing, reference in that regard has been made to Section 16G (6), Regulations 37 to 39 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act. In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that District Inspector of Schools was also not required under law to afford any opportunity before approving the order of suspension, specifically in the circumstances when suspension is pending under enquiry.