The District Inspector of Schools lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the termination order passed by the Principal for a Class IV employee during the probation period, as such termination is not punitive and does not require the approval of the District Inspector under Regulation 44a (2) of the Regulations framed under Section 16g of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act.

SHOBHA DIKSHIT, J.

( 1 ) THE Committee of Management of Swami Vivekanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, unnao has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Impugned order dated 5. 11. 1982 passed by opposite party No. I, District Inspector of Schools. Unnao who did not approve the order dated 29. 7.-1982 passed by the Principal, terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 and instead directed the Manager to provide another opportunity to said employee Sri Moti Lal Singh to improve himself by permitting him to join the post again. It was further provided that by way of punishment, the employee shall not be entitled to salary from the period his services were terminated till he Joins the post. The employee was also directed to furnish within one month the certificate of his educational qualifications before the appointing authority. The order has been challenged primarily on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and authority of law. therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

( 2 ) THE question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the Principal of an aided institution who is the appointing authority of a Class IV employee can validly terminate his services, specially during probation period or not and if so, wbether the same required approval of. District Inspector of Schools under the relevant provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education act and the Regulations framed thereunder or not?

( 3 ) THE facts, in the backdrop of which the aforesaid questions have arisen, in brief, are as follows : Swami Vivekanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Unnao (hereinafter referred to as the institution) is a recognised Institution by the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate education and imparts education upto High School. This institution is run by the society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act and the scheme of administration framed by it has duly been recognised and approved in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education act as amended from time to time. The Principal is the appointing authority of Class IV employees as per Regulation 100 of the Regulations framed under Section 16g of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the same are contained in Chapter III of the aforesaid regulations. Opposite Party No. 2 Moti Lal Singh was appointed on a Class IV post of Mali by the Principal vide appointment letter dated 25. 7. 1981 on probation of one year. A copy of the appointment letter has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition. In pursuance of the said appointment letter, opposite party No. 2 joined his duties with effect from 1. 8. 1981. Soon after joining the said post, complaints were made against the respondent No. 2. It is alleged that on 11. 2. 1982, Vijai Pal Singh. Assistant Teacher had reported that opposite party No. 2 while being drunk misbehaved with him on 10. 2. 1982. On receiving the said complaint, memo was issued to the employee and thereafter warning was also issued to him. During the period of probation, respondents work was not found satisfactory. He was issued warnings from time to time. The complaints were primarily with regard to his habit of getting drunk during duty hours, coming late and not discharging his duties as a Mali. A show cause notice was also issued to him on 8. 7. 1982 calling upon him to show cause as to why he had remained absent from duty from 24. 6. 1982 till 1. 7. 1982 and has not looked after the garden of the Institution. He was also asked specifically as to why he remained intoxicated during duty hours and he misbehaves with other employees of the Institution. Respondent No. 2 submitted a reply denying everything but his explanation was not accepted. While all these complaints were pending and were being looked into, respondent again misbehaved on 13. 7. 1982 with Rajendra Bahadur Singh, office clerk and assaulted him being in drunken state. Sri Rajendra Bahadur Singh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document