UDAI PRATAP COLLEGE VARANASI Vs. KAUSHLESH PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising from a suit for declaration that the charge-sheet dated 28.12.1966 and the proceedings thereafter resulting in the passing of the resolution of the Managing Committee of the defendant-institution dated 1.10.1967 and the notice issued thereafter dated 2.12.1967 are illegal, ineffective, ultra vires and not binding on the plaintiff. The trial court decreed the suit in part declaring the notice dated 2.12.1967 requiring the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service to be illegal, ineffective and ultra vires. Rest of the claim made by the plaintiff was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiff, the suit was decreed into to with costs throughout. The grounds on which the plaintiff had claimed the relief have been summarised by the trial court thus: "(1) The plaintiff was appointed by the Managing Committee of 1952 which was properly constituted and as such alleged disciplinary action against the plaintiff can only be taken by 'a properly constituted com mittee but as the present committee was not a proper and valid com mittee. The disciplinary action against the plaintiff was unfounded. (2) The next contention is that no charge-sheet was issued by a com petent authority, and therefore, the notice of penalty is illegal, premature and ultra vires. (3) Thirdly it has been urged that the Enquiry Officer was not appointed by a competent authority and therefore was not an enquiry officer in the eye of law and is not entitled to proceed against the plaintiff, it has been urged in this connection that the charge-sheet issued by the Enquiry Officer is not a charge- sheet in the eye of law. (4) The alleged charge-sheet has not been signed by disciplinary autho rity and the same is not charge- sheet and no action can be taken on this basis. (5) The defendant no. 5 being a party to the alleged dispute between the plaintiff and him, the enquiry should have been conducted according to Education Act by a committee. The present Enquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to try. (6) It has been urged that the Management Committee is not competent to issue the impugned notices. (7) Lastly the notice of the proposed penalty being based on an improper report and malicious report the proposed penalty cannot be imposed." And the following were the issues on which the parties went to trial: 1. Whether the present Management Committee is not competent to take action against the plaintiff for the reasons contained in paras 6 and 7 of plaint ?

(2.) WHETHER the present management committee has regularised its status as alleged in para 34 of additional pleas of written statement ?

(3.) HAS this court no jurisdiction to the suit for the reasons contained in para 30 of W. S. ?