UCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA,JALAUN AND ANR. Vs. U.P.SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION,ALLAHABAD & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is on behalf of committee of management, who is running educational institution, namely, Uchhattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. By means of present writ petition, the relief for quashing the order of Commission dated 12/18th April, 1991, filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition has been prayed for.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Sri Jugal Kishore Verma was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid institution and was granted LT grade pay scale. He, according to the petitioners fabricated entries in his service record as also the orders of the District Inspector of Schools and claimed to be a permanent Principal of the High School as in the mean time, the institution was upgraded from Junior High School to High School. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 3 by framing eight charges on the ground of fabrication of record and misappropriation of funds. A copy of the charge -sheet has been filed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. The charges are to the effect that respondent No. 3 is guilty of embezzlement of money, as well as fabrication of service records and other documents. A copy of the charge -sheet was served by registered post on 16th August, 1988, asking him to submit a reply in writing within three weeks as also produce the evidence in support thereof and inform, if he wants to cross -examine any person he may indicate it. A notice by publication in a newspaper Dainik Karm Yug Prakash, dated September 11, 1988 was also published informing respondent No. 3 that through the registered letter dated 16th August, 1988, a reply was called for within a period of three weeks which is still awaited. Through this notice published in the news paper it was also made known that reply may be given by 18th December, 1988 positively and on 21st December, 1988, respondent No. 3 may present himself before the Committee of Management as its meeting is scheduled on that date at 10.00 a.m. in the school premises. Respondent No. 3 neither appeared nor was there any reply to the charges leveled against him and the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 21st of August, 1988 resolved to terminate the services of respondent No. 3. All the relevant documents were submitted to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (hereinafter called as Commission) for its approval under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and the Regional Selection Board Act, 1982 through the agency of the District Inspector of Schools. The Commission fixed 2nd April, 1991 for hearing of the petitioner and 3rd April, 1991 for the personal hearing of respondent No. 3. The Commission although found that respondent No. 3 is guilty of charge Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8, but disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management, dismissing the services of respondent No. 3 by the impugned order, on the ground that Regulation 37 has been violated by the petitioner.

(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission has found that the copy of the charge -sheet was duly served on respondent No. 3. The charge Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8 were found to be proved, the Commission committed illegality in disapproving the resolution of petitioner No. 1 dismissing respondent No. 3 from the services. Elaborating the argument he submitted that the Commission has disbelieved the version of respondent No. 3 that the charge -sheet sent by registered post on 16th August, 1988 was received by respondent No. 3 on 18th October, 1988 i.e. after the resolution of the Committee of Management. In other words respondent No. 3 was duly served with the copy of the charge -sheet and he has intentionally failed to submit reply within the stipulated period. It is not open to respondent No. 3 to contend that no proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him by the petitioners. The Commission committed illegality in disapproving the resolution of the Committee of Management, on the ground that there is non compliance of Regulation 37 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He laid emphasis on the fact that as a matter of fact no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by the Commission, in as much as the Commission heard the Committee of Management not in presence of respondent No. 3 and similarly respondent No. 3 was heard on the next date in the absence of the petitioners, therefore, the Commission is guilty of violating the Principles of Natural Justice, which has caused prejudice to the petitioners. Had the Commission heard the parties in presence of each other, the petitioner would have explained the point raised by respondent No. 3 before it in an effective manner. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in this regard on Awadh Narain Tripathi v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Ors., 1995(2) LBESR 102 (All) : (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1891. In contra, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri Prakash Padia submitted that this Court should not interfere with the impugned order, in as much as the Commission has reserved the right of petitioner No. 1 to take appropriate steps, if so advised after following the due procedure as prescribed under Regulation 37. He submitted that respondent No. 3 could not file reply to the show -cause notice as well as he could not appear before the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 21st August, 1988 and as such in the fitness of things an opportunity of hearing be afforded to him and the impugned order is perfectly equitable and justified. In view of decision in Rajendra Pal Srivastava v. Secondary Education Service Commission, 2003 (1) E.S.C 74, the decision in the case of Awadh Narain (supra) is no longer a good law, submits the respondent's Counsel.