Back
2009 Supreme(All) 3006
[2009(9) ADJ 238 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : C.K. PRASAD, C.J. AND A.P. SAHI, J.
RAJA RAM SHUKLA ....Appellant
Versus
U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 835 of 1997 and Sepcial Appeal (Defective) No. 490 of 1997, decided on 26th August, 2009)
Counsel :
Ashok Khare and Shobhit Dubey for the Appellant; A.K. Yadav, P.S. Baghel, Man Mohan Singh, M.C. Chaturvedi, C.S.C., M.S. Pipersenia, Addl. C.S.C., V.B. Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:Dismissal—Punishment of reversion and reduction in rank—As Lecturer from post of Principal in College—Imposition of punishment and penalty—Power of Commission to alter or modify proposal forwarded by Committee of Management—Whether appellant was a direct recruit on post of Principal, or not, on the date when punishment was awarded—And, as to whether punishment of reversion awarded by Commission was permissible—Whether Commission has power to alter, modify, rescind, or issue, any direction in relation to proposal for punishment—And, whether delinquent employee could have been reverted to post of Lecturer by Commission, or not—Single Judge dismissing writ petitions and upholding order of Commission, disapproving recommendations of C.O.M., proposing dismissal of appellant from post of Principal, and substituting punishment of reversion to post of Lecturer in said Institution—Post was advertised by Commission to be filled up by selection and same was done by direct recruitment—Commission does have power to alter, or modify proposal forwarded by C.O.M.—In a matter of reduction of rank, imposition of penalty is not free from limitations—Therefore, appellant having not been promoted could not have been reverted, or reduced in rank by Commission to post of Lecturer—He lost his lien on post held by him earlier altogether—And, there was a complete change in his status of service after selection as Principal—Therefore, Commission was directed to decide matter afresh. [U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982—Sections 21, 16-E(2), 16, 10 and 12—U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985—Regulation 8—U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921—Section 32]. [Paras 2, 29, 35, 42, 43, 48, 54 to 58]
By the Court.—These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in two writ petitions delivered on 20.8.1997, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions, and upheld the order of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, disapproving the recommendation of the Committee of Management proposing dismissal of Raja Ram Shukla, appellant in Special Appeal No. 835 of 1997 from the post of Principal of an Intermediate College, and substituting the punishment of reversion, whereby the said appellant stood reverted as a Lecturer in the institution. The judgment under Appeal stands reported in 1997 (3) ESC 1850, Raja Ram Shukla v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and others.
2. The issue raised in this appeal is primarily on the question as to whether the appellant-Raja Ram Shukla was a direct recruit on the post of Principal or not on the date when the punishment was awarded and as to whether the punishment of reversion awarded by the Commission was permissible in law keeping in view the provisions of Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (Act No. 5 of 1982) read with Regulation 8 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985.
3. The undisputed facts are that Raja Ram Shukla, the petitioner-appellant in Special Appeal No. 835 of 1997, was promoted and was appointed as a Lecturer in the year 1973 in the institution in question namely Vinoba Inter College, Kamasin, District Banda. The appointment on the post of Teachers and Principals in an Inter College are governed by the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 as amended from time to time.
4. A vacancy, on the post of Principal, occurred in the said institution which was advertised under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. This vacancy on the post of Principal occurred when the earlier incumbent retired on 30.6.1987. According to the Rules applicable, and as admitted in the pleadings of both the parties, Raja Ram Shukla, being one of the senior most Lecturers of the institution, was nominated under the Rules, and his documents were forwarded for being considered to be selected as Principal of the Institution. The Commission, after having screened out all the candidates, finally selected Raja Ram Shukla, who came to be appointed as Principal in the year 1989 itself.
5. The Committee of Management of the Institution alleged certain financial irregularities and acts of misconduct against the said Raja Ram Shukla and instituted disciplinary proceedings against him. The delinquent was charge-sheeted and according to the Committee of Management an inquiry was held providing full opportunity to him whereafter the Committee of Management resolved to dismiss Raja Ram Shukla from his service as Principal vide resolution dated 13.3.1994. The said resolution was required to be approved under the 1982 Act by the Commission and, as such, the same was forwarded by the Committee of Management to the Commission. The Commission by order dated 4.11.1995, impugned in the writ petitions, even though found Raja Ram Shukla to be guilty, refused to approve the punishment of dismissal and substituted the same by passing an order of reversion. Accordingly, Raja Ram Shukla stood reverted as a Lecturer in the Institution.
6. The said order of the Commission was assailed by Raja Ram Shukla as well as by the Committee of Management inasmuch as Raja Ram Shukla was aggrieved by the award of punishment by way of reversion whereas the Committee of Management was aggrieved as according to it, the punishment of reversion could not have been substituted as against the punishment of dismissal proposed by it.
7. The learned single Judge held that Raja Ram Shukla had been promoted to the post of Principal and, therefore, he could have been reverted to the post of Lecturer, and further found that in view o
