COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT D A V INTER COLLEGE ALIGARH Vs. U P SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is a glaring instance of the litigative zeal which is permeating the educational sphere. To what extent a Principal appointed on permanent basis after due selection and recommendation having been made by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission could be subjected to harassment and nagging by being suspended more than once and terminated on flimsy grounds and to suffer humiliation by allowing him to sit idle because he failed to toe the line of the management and refused to fall prey to its evil and selfish designs and aggrandizement is the theme of present litigation. Such a fruitless repetitive litigation has to be deprecated. This lamentation comes in the wake of the following facts. There is an aided and recognised institution with the name of D. A. V. Inter College, Aligarh which is governed by the provisions of U. p. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U. P. Higher Secondary and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act. 1971 as well as U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. Vinod Kumar Saraswat (for short 'Saraswat') respondent No. 3 was appointed as permanent Principal of the College and he joined his duties on 29.1.1985. At that time. Satish Chand Bhalaji, who is presently Manager of the Committee of Management of the College, was Treasurer of the Committee. It appears that right from the very beginning, there was a tussle between the Committee of Management, on one hand, and Saraswat who joined the Institution after having been selected as Principal by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), on the other. The Committee of Management was not satisfied with the work, conduct and functioning of Saraswat and rating his performance as thoroughly unsatisfactory, thought it proper to terminate his services even during the period of probation and consequently made a recommendation for approval under Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1982'). The proposal of the Committee of Management did not find favour with the Commission. Saraswat, therefore, continued to work as Principal on permanent basis. The management was under clouds for variety of reasons and, therefore, an Authorised Controller was appointed and performed the functions of the Committee of Management during the period March, 1986 to March, 1990. The reason why Saraswat became an eyesore to the Committee of Management is not too far to seek. When Saraswat took over as Principal, he found that the office bearers of the Committee of Management had not deposited the amount collected towards the maintenance fund and the Boys' fund in the respective accounts of the Institution and were utilising the said money for their personal gain and business. Saraswat took a bold step and deposited a sum of Rs. 73,279 in proper accounts in the month of February, 1985. This act of Saraswat Invited the wrath of the Committee of Management. After the term of the Authorised Controller expired, the Committee of Management suspended Saraswat on 12.9.1992. Suspension order was subject to approval of the Commission /District Inspector of Schools (for short 'D.I.O.S.') and since it was not approved within the period prescribed, the resolution of suspension lapsed. The Committee of Management filed a writ petition in which a direction was Issued on 11.H.1992 to the D.I.O.S. to pass appropriate orders. Two separate orders, dated 13.11.1992 and 17.11.1992 were passed by the D.I.O.S., the effect of which was that the resolution of suspension could not be approved as it has lapsed on account of passage of time and that Saraswat shall continue to work as Principal. Again, the Committee of Management filed another writ petition in which an order was passed on 24.11.1992 directing the D.I.O.S. to consider the proposal of suspension of Saraswat on merits in accordance with the provisions of Section 16G (5) of the Intermediate Education Act. The D.I.O.S. thereafter passed an order on 22.12.1992 disapproving the proposal for suspension on the ground that the charges against Saraswat are not so serious as would entail, in the event of proof, dismissal, removal or termination of his services. The Committee of Management was not satisfied with the order passed by the D.I.O.S. and again challenged the order dated 22.12.1992 by filing Writ Petition No. 3950 of 1993 which was dismissed, in limine on 13.1.1993. It appears that in the month of May, 1993, the management was taken over by the Authorised Controller. The disciplinary enquiry and alt other matters against Saraswat were dropped. The Committee of Management challenged the appointment of Authorised Controller and in pursuance of the Interim order passed by this Court, the Committee of Management was again placed in charge of the affairs of the institution.

(2.) The Committee of Management again placed Saraswat under suspension on 23.2.1994 and referred the matter for approval to the Commission/D.I.O.S. The required approval was not granted and consequently the Committee of Management filed a Writ Petition No. 11557 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 12.4.1994 by Hon'ble V. Bahuguna, J. It was directed that the departmental enquiry against Saraswal may be completed within a period of four months and that the management shall be at liberty to take work from Saraswat or not but he shall be paid his salary. The Committee of Management as well as Saraswat filed two separate Special Appeals which were disposed of on 12.5.1994 by a common judgment substantially upholding the order dated 12.4.1994 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11557 of 1994. One Hari Narain Singhai, Advocate was appointed as Convenor of Committee of Enquiry, which was required to go into the various charges against Saraswat. Since Saraswat was not allowed to work as the Principal of the institution, a proposal was mooted to appoint Lala Baboo Gupta--respondent No. 4 as officiating Principal as the Lecturers senior to him refused to take over the charge of Principal. There was some hesitation on the part of the authorities to accept Lal Baboo Gupta as officiating Principal and, therefore, the Committee of Management has to file Writ Petition No. 23336 of 1994 which was disposed of on 17.8.1994. The concerned authorities accepted and acknowledged Lal Baboo Gupta as Acting/Officiating Principal and attested his signatures.

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioners that in spite of best efforts of the enquiry committee, the charge-sheet could not be delivered to Saraswat as he has been avoiding to receive the same. Saraswat did not participate, it is alleged, in the enquiry proceeding and consequently a report of enquiry was submitted on 27.7.1994. The Committee of Management held Its meeting to consider the report of enquiry on 4.8.1994 in which Saraswat was also Invited and he did appear. The Committee of Management took the decision to terminate the services of Saraswat and accordingly submitted all the relevant papers to the Commission through D.I.O.S on 9.8.1994. The matter remained pending for a number of months and ultimately, the Commission fixed 8.6.1995 for personal hearing of the parties with reference to the representation made by Saraswat before the Commission. The Secretary of the Committee of Management on account of his illness and other reasons was not able to appear before the Commission on the specified date and sought adjournment. It was not allowed and after considering the material on record, particularly the report of the Sub-Committee (Punishment), the Commission did not approve the proposal to terminate the services of Saraswat and passed appropriate orders on 26.6.1995 which were communicated to the petitioners on 29.6.1995. The Committee of Management challenged the order passed by the Commission before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 18465 of 1995 which was disposed of on 30.8.1995 by Hon'ble M. Katju, J. It was directed that the Commission shall re-examine the matter, rehear the parties and allow them to lead their evidence. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Commission appointed Dr. Moti Lal Varma as member of the Sub-Committee (Punishment) who submitted his report, dated 23.9.1995, after giving opportunity to both the parties. This report of the Sub-Committee was considered by the Commission in its meeting on 25.9.95 and the proposal to punish Saraswat by terminating his services was disapproved. The communication was Issued by the Secretary of the Commission on 7.10.1995, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition.