COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT GANGA BUX KANORIA GANDHI INTER COLLEGE DEORIA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCTION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Committee of Management, Ganga Buksh Kanorla Gandhi Inter College, KaptanganJ. Deorla through its Manager has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, and has impugned order dated 9.11.1979 (Annexure-37) passed by District Inspector of Schools, Deorta and order dated March 20. 1982 (Annexure-41) passed by Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 dismissing appeal, whereby said educational authorities refused to accord approval to the Management's decision and action to terminate the services of Ram Pyare Pandey, (respondent No. 3), who was working as teacher in the petitioner's institution. Petitioner claims a writ In the nature certiorari to quash the said impugned orders.

(2.) It has come on record that certain disciplinary action was taken against petitioner in the year 1976 and he made complaint against the same. Petitioner was suspended but said suspension order was revoked by the then District Inspector of Schools. Management ought to terminate the services of the petitioner but It was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools. Appeal against the said order was rejected. Petitioner was reinstated, but curiously enough, present disciplinary action was again taken against the petitioner. Petitioner was again suspended. District Inspector of Schools again revoked the suspension order. The Management purports to have served a charge sheet and proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Section 16G of U. P, Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (called 'the Act') read with Chapter III of the Regulations, framed under the Act. In present petition. Management has laboured to indicate that respondent No. 3 avoided to accept notice and, thus, created obstacle in the smooth conduct of the proceedings. Management accuses respondent No. 3 for not cooperating.

(3.) Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has pleaded that he was harassed by the Management. Petitioner in his defence before the educational authority submitted that he was constrained to file a civil suit in order to protect himself from exploitation and harassment at the hands of the Management. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 both have filed documents in support of their respective cases.