LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-213

SATISH CHANDRA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 11, 1997
SATISH CHANDRA SAXENA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.6.1987 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Xlth & XIIth Region, Moradabad, according the approval to the order of termination dated 16.12.1978, whereby the services of the petitioner as clerk were terminated by the Committee of Management of the institution. Prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to treat the petitioner in continuous service and pay him his salary including the arrears of salary, in accordance with law has also been made.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition, are that petitioner was appointed as a clerk in Ram Chandra Singh Khatri Kanya Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Amroha, Moradabad, on 1.7.1970 on one year's probation. The petitioner claims that on expiry of period of probation, i.e.. one year, his services stood be confirmed. It was on 17/18.8.1978 the petitioner went on casual leave for 2 days after submitting application before the Principal, which was accepted. The petitioner thereafter could not attend the college on account of his illness. It was on 16.12.1978 the petitioner was suddenly informed by the Principal of the College that the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 4.12.1978 terminating his services w.e.f. 17.8.1978. It was on 10.3.1979 that the Manager of the Institution sought approval of termination of the petitioner from the respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter submitted several applications before R.I.G.S. requesting that he be reinstated and his salary be directed to be paid as the order of termination was passed without prior approval of respondent No. 2. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to submit apology otherwise his services were to be terminated. As desired by respondent No. 2, the apology was submitted by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, however, instead of accepting his apology and directing petitioner's reinstatement on the post in question, accorded approval vide order dated 18.6.1987. i.e.. about 19 years after the order of termination was passed. The services were terminated w.e.f. 17.8.1978. Since according to the petitioner, the order was passed in contravention of the provisions of Section 16G (I) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulation 31 framed thereunder, he challenged, the validity of the said order by means of this petition.

(3.) On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3, the Committee of Management of the college, a counter-affidavit has been filed controverting the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been stated that petitioner absented from duly without leave and in spite of notice being published in the newspaper did not attend his duties, that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner but no explanation was submitted by him nor he attended the school. The Committee of Management, therefore, after following the procedure prescribed under the law, passed a resolution terminating the services of the petition on 4.12.1978. Thereafter papers were submitted before R.I.G.S.. Moradabad, on 14.12.1978 for approval of the order of termination. The respondent No. 2 sought some information from the respondent No. 3. which was supplied well in time. It has also been stated that the petitioner admitted his guilt and prayed for pardon and reinstatement in the service. The letters written by the petitioner to the R.I.G.S. for granting him pardon were communicated by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3. It was on 17.6.1987 that the respondent No. 2 after hearing both the parties, accorded approval to the order of termination passed against the petitioner vide order dated 17.6.1987. After termination of services of the petitioner it is alleged that one Naresh Kumar was appointed on the post in question, whose appointment was also approved by the respondent No. 2. It has been contended that approval to the order of termination shall be deemed to have been accorded automatically on expiry of 6 months from the date the papers were submitted before the respondent No. 2.