MANAGING COMMITTEE, T.M.E. SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner challenged the orders of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 contained in Annexures 5, 6 and 7.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the facts averred by the Petitioner the Managing Committee, Talapada M. E. School in Karanjia are that opposite party No. 4 was serving as an assistant teacher of the school. In course of employment as such as committed certain acts of indiscipline amounting to misconduct and so in contemplation of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him, the Petitioner by order dated 1 -7 -1980 (Annexures 2 (a) and 2 (b) ) placed him under suspension and framed charges against him on 2 -7 -1980 (Annexure 3 (b)). Presumably because opposite party No. 4 approached opposite party - Nos. 2 and 3, the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj Circle and the District Inspector of Schools, Panchpir, respectively they advised the Petitioner in the impugned Annexures to revoke the order of suspension and permit opposite party No. 4 to resume duty on the ground that for placing him under suspension, prior approval as required by Rule 21 (2) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service, of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules '') had not been complied with rendering the order of suspension illegal and without jurisdiction. It is asserted that prior approval under Rule 21 (2) of the Rules was not at all necessary for placing opposite party No. 4 under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding and by passing the impugned orders opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 unnecessarily and having no jurisdiction interfered with the administrative affairs of the school and attempted to dent the authority of the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action against its employees. It was therefore, prayed for quashing Annexures 5; 6 and 7.

(3.) OPPOSITE party ' Nos. 1 and 2 alone filed counter and their defence is that charges were framed against opposite party No 4 for misconduct. In answer to the charges opposite party No. 4 submitted his explanation and after consideration of the same and upon hearing opposite party No. 4. the Petitioner, inflicted penalty of suspension on him without obtaining prior, approval according to Rule 21 (2) of the Rules. As the order of suspension was passed as a measure of punishment in the disciplinary proceeding, it was necessary for obtaining prior approval according to the aforesaid rule and if it was not done, opposite party Nos, 2 and 3 advised the Petitioner to revoke the order of suspension and permit opposite party No. 4 to resume duty. As such, the orders passed in Annexures 5, 6 and 7 were perfectly justified and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were bound by duty to advise the Petitioner to act in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the aforesaid documents cannot be quashed.