COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ADARSH INTER COLLEGE UMARI BIJNOR Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION XII REGION MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Surendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. L. Pandey learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and also the learned standing Counsel. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner dated 1-5-2005 to which supplementary counter-affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit have also been filed. As prayed by Counsel for both the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12-11-1999 passed by the Joint Director of Education, XII Region, Moradabad. A writ of mandamus has also been sought restraining the respondents No. 1 and 2 from reinstating the respondent No. 3 as Head clerk of the institution. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the writ petition are;

(3.) THE Committee of Management which was functioning in the institution passed resolution dated 28- 2-1997 deciding to suspend the respondent No. 3 on several charges including the charges of removing the records of the Institution, and attacking the officiating Principal in the college premises. A charge- sheet dated 28-2-1997 was also issued to the respondent No. 3 containing 12 charges. THE suspension order darted 1-3-1997 was also issued to the respondent No. 3. Immediately after suspension one serious incident took place in the premises of the Institution. THE manager of the institution Hari Singh while he went to the institution to stop certain persons from making unauthorised construction on the college land, was killed. A First Information Report was lodged by the son of Manager naming the respondent No. 3 also as one of the accused. Respondent No. 3 was arrested and had sent to jail. THE Committee of Management again passed a resolution on 4-4-1997 for obtaining approval of suspension of the respondent No. 3. THE District Inspector of Schools approved the suspension vide order dated 26- 4- 1997. A notice was given to the respondent No. 3 by the Manager dated 7-7-1997 asking the respondent No. 3 to submit a reply to the charges. THE letter further stated that in the event the respondent No. 3 does not reply it will be assumed that he accepts the charges and papers for his removal will be sent to the District Inspector of Schools. A letter was sent by the respondent No. 3 dated 29-7-1997 addressing the Manager as alleged Manager and asking certain documents to be shown. THE said letter was immediately replied by the Manager by her letter dated 2-8-1997. THE letter further stated that if the respondent No. 3 wanted to peruse any document he may appear before the Manager by giving prior information to the Principal and inspect the document. Notice was also published in the news paper asking the petitioner to submit reply. THE letter dated 2-8-1997 of the Manager was replied by the respondent No. 3 and he stated that he be given copy of the record instead of asking him to inspect the record. In the said letter again the Manager was addressed as alleged Manager. Letter dated 23-8-1997 was also sent to the respondent No. 3 and several copies of documents were also sent. THE Committee of Management passed resolution on 19-9-1997 informing the District Inspector of Schools that no reply has been submitted by the respondent No. 3 to the charge-sheet. THE charges have to be accepted since in spite of opportunity no reply is being given, a decision was taken to dismiss the respondent No. 3 from service and the Manager forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. THE District Inspector of Schools vide his order dated 1-5-1998 approved the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 19-9-1997 dismissing the respondent No. 3 from service. Against the order of the District Inspector of Schools an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Joint Director of Education. THE Joint Director of Education vide his order dated 12-11-1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 1-5-1998 and directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 on his post. THE said order dated 12-11-1999 has been challenged in this Court by the Committee of Management. This Court passed an interim order on 2-12-1999 in this writ petition directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 3. Against the order dated 2-12-1999 an Special Appeal was filed by the Committee of Management and the Special Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 12- 1-2000 set aside the interim direction issued in the writ petition for reinstatement of respondent No. respondent No. 3. No further order was passed in this writ petition. THE respondent No. 3 has not been reinstated or paid any amount.