Back
1997 Supreme(All) 55
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.Katju
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF SHRL SHANKARASHARAM MAHAVLDYAPITH INTER COLLEGE MLRZAPUR
Versus
D I O S MIRZAPUR
Decided On : 21 January 1997
C. M. W. P. No. 33986 of 1995 ;
Ashok Khare, O.K.Singh, R.N.Singh,
The court emphasized the importance of submitting relevant documents in support of suspension allegations, as required by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
Headnote:
Suspension - Education Act - The court dismissed the writ petition against the suspension of the ad hoc Principal of an institution, as the District Inspector of Schools found no material submitted by the petitioner in support of the allegations against the respondent. The court also noted that the relevant documents were not filed by the management along with its application for suspension approval, as required by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
Fact of the Case:
The ad hoc Principal of an institution was suspended and directed to hand over charge to another individual. The District Inspector of Schools disapproved the suspension, leading to a petition by the management. The court found that no material was submitted in support of the allegations against the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the findings of the District Inspector of Schools were findings of fact and could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. However, the court directed that the enquiry against the respondent be completed within three months.
Issues: The issues involved the suspension of the ad hoc Principal and the submission of relevant documents by the management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that no material was submitted in support of the allegations against the respondent and noted that the relevant documents were not filed by the management along with its application for suspension approval, as required by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court directed that the enquiry against the respondent be completed within three months.
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 14-8-95 passed by the District Inspec tor of Schools, Mirzapur, Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
2. I heard Shri G. K. Singh learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Khare for respondent No. 2 and learned standing counsel also.
3. The respondent No. 2 was function ing as ad hoc Principal of the Institution in question. He was placed under suspension by order dated 26-6-95 vide Annexure 1 to the petition and by another order passed on the same date, he was directed to hand over charge of the post of Principal to Hemdutt Tripathi vide Annexure 2 to the petition. The Manager of the institution informed the District Inspector of Schools about this suspension and by letter dated 5-7-95 he submitted the relevant documents with the letter to the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G (7) of the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act. A true copy of the letter dated 5-7-91 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
4. Subsequently by order dated 14-8-95 the District Inspector of Schools disap proved the suspension of respondent No. 2. Aggrieved this petition has been filed by the management.
5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and I have heard learned counsel, for parties.
6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14-8-95 shows that the District In spector of Schools has examined all the al legations against the petitioner and prima facie found that no material has been sub mitted by the petitioner in support of the allegation against respondent No. 2. The District Inspector of Schools has dealt with each of the charges and has recorded his finding there on. As regards charge No. 1 he has held that as regards, the allegation of submitting a false statement, the same was signed by the Manager also and hence the Principal alone cannot be blamed. As regards charge No. 2 he has observed that there is nothing to show that the Principal was guilty of insubordination in accepting certain funds. As regards, charge No. 3 he has observed that the cheques has to be signed by the Manager also and moreover it is not such a serious, charge. As regards charge Nos. 4 to 7, he has observed that no material has been submitted by the manage ment to justify these charges.
7. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, invited by attention to Regulation 39 (1) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which states:
"39. (1) The report regarding the suspen sion of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 16-G shall contain the following particulars and be accompanied by the following documents:-
(a) the name of the person suspended along with particulars of the post (including grades) held by him since the date of his original appointment till the time of suspension including particulars as to the nature of tenure held at the time of suspen sion, e. g. temporary, permanent or officiating;
(b) a certified copy of the report on the basis of which such person was last confirmed or al lowed to cross efficiency bar, whichever is later;
(c) details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended;
(d) certified copies of the complaints, reports and enquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended.
(e) certified copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending such per son;
(f) certified copy of the order of suspension issued to such person;
(g) in case person was suspended previously also, details of the charges on which and the period for which he was suspended on previous occasions accompanied by certified copies of the orders on the basis of which he was reinstated. "
8. A perusal of the above regulation shows that when the Management applies under Section 16-G (5) for approval of the suspension, then the relevant documents must accompany the said application. In the present case that has not done.
9. On
