IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
B.N. NIGAM, D.P. UNIYAL, N.U. BEG, JJ.
Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 19 of 1960
Decided On : 27-11-1961
JUDGMENT
N.U. Beg, J. - This is a special, appeal arising out of a petition preferred by Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act No. XXI of 1860). Besides other educational institutions the appellant runs and maintains a school known as Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Lucknow. Sri Ram Singh Kotwal is the Secretary and Manager of the said School. Dr. Shyam Lal Pandey was appointed as the Principal of the school under an agreement entered into between the Managing Committee of the school and the said Principal. This agreement is dated the 13th January 1952, and is Annexure 2 in this case. Under Clause 7 of the agreement the Managing Committee had the power to dismiss the Principal in case the latter was found guilty of insubordination, deliberate neglect of duty or any other serious misconduct. Under Clause 10 of the agreement the Managing Committee had also the power to terminate the agreement with the approval of the Inspector of Schools.
In the year 1958 the Principal's conduct was considered to be unsatisfactory by the Managing Committee. Accordingly Sri R. S. Kotwal, the Manager and Secretary of the School passed an order suspending him from the 15th September 1958, (vide Annexure 3). On the 21st September, 1958 charges were framed against the Principal by the Managing Committee. Annexure 4 is the charge-sheet. On the 27th October, 1958, certain additional charges were framed against him. Annexure 5 is the charge-sheet showing additional charges. On the 19th October, 1958, a subcommittee of four members and one convenor was appointed by the Managing Committee to enquire into the charges framed against the Principal and to give its report thereon. On the 26th January. 1959, this sub-committee submitted its report holding that the charges against the Principal were proved- This is Annexure 6. All the members of the committee except one appended their agreement to this report. Only one member recorded a note of dissent. This note of dissent contained in Annexure 7 dated 27th January, 1959.
On the 11th February, 1959, the Managing Committee passed a resolution terminating the agreement if the Inspector gave his consent to it; and, in the alternative, dismissing the Principal In case it was not possible to obtain the approval of the Inspector. The case of the petitioner was that the Inspector was approached for the purpose of obtaining his approval, but he refused to give the same. The Managing Committee, accordingly, dismissed the Principal on the 8th March, 1959 in accordance with its resolution dated the 11th February, 1959.
2. It appears that the Principal, after having received the order of dismissal, made certain representations to the Educational authorities, as a result of which the District Inspector of Schools addressed a letter dated the 10th March, 1959, to the Manager of the Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya drawing his attention to the fact that the action of the Managing Committee in dismissing the Principal was ultra vires the provisions of Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. This letter further stated that under the said provision of law the prior approval in writing of the Inspector of Schools was necessary before the Principal could be dismissed; and, as no such prior approval of the Inspector of Schools was obtained in this case, the Order Of dismissal was inoperative and invalid. This letter is Annexure 12.
3. On the 9th April, 1959, the Managing Committee preferred an appeal against the said direction of the Inspector of Schools to the Regional Appellate Committee, Lucknow Region (vide Annexure 17). On the 2nd July, 1959, the Joint Director of Education wrote a letter to the Manager, Sri Durga Vidyalaya, requesting the latter to cancel the order of dismissal and reinstate Dr. Pandey immediately on his post. This letter further contained an intimation that an case it was not done, the grant-in-aid
Province of Bombay Vs. Kusaldas S. Advani and Others
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others
The Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.