COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, RASHTRIYA KRISHI AWAM UDYOG INTER COLLEGE AND ANOTHER Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, BAREILLY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26 -12 -1997 at Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition whereby the District Inspector of Schools Bareilly has disapproved the suspension of the respondent No. 2 in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded beyond the scope of enquiry for not granting approval of suspension and recorded findings regarding the charges on merit. Mr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contends that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present writ petition in view of the order dated 29 -12 -1997 at Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner -committee of management is no more entitled to represent the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order dated 8 -1 -1998 at Annexure No. 17 to the writ petition for the purpose of showing that the committee of management is authorised to represent the institution till now. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 though disputes the validity of the said document dated 8 -1 -1998 but at this stage I am of the opinion that while considering the present matter the said question as regards validity of the committee of management and his right to continue to represent the institution need not to be considered as admittedly a proceeding has already been initiated relating to the aforesaid matter.

(2.) WITH regard to the main contention of the petitioner as regards the impugned order dated 26 -12 -1997 at Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition, after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the view that the authority concerned in the said order has come to a finding as regards the charges themselves at the stage of considering the validity of the suspension order of the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent also could not justify the findings to the aforesaid effect.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances the said order cannot stand and the matter requires to be decided afresh within the limit prescribed by law. Therefore, I allow this writ petition and the impugned order dated 26 -12 -1997 at Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition is hereby quashed with a further direction upon the respondent No. 1 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 seeks relief as regards payment of salary to the respondent No. 2. As the suspension order has already been disapproved and the respondent No. 2 is entitled to payment of salary, no such direction is required to be passed in this proceeding.