SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 305

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Smt. INDU SRIVASTAVA ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48167 of 2010, decided on 30th March, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Ashok Khare and Siddharth Khare for the Petitioner; C.S.C., D.P. Singh and S. Niranjan for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921—Chapter III, Regulations 35 to 37—Termination—Library peon—On the ground that his appointment being void as father-in-law of petitioner was Manager of the then Committee of Management—Petitioner retired on the age of superannuation—Termination order passed in violation of prescribed procedure under Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter III—Termination order passed merely on a notice to show-cause—No charge-sheet issued to the petitioner as required under the Regulation for initiating disciplinary proceedings for imposing penalty—There was no allegation of causing loss to the Institution which was to be recovered, hence no enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner after retirement—Termination order of petitioner passed without adopting procedure and in violation of Regulations, held, to be illegal and arbitrary—Order of termination liable to be quashed. [Paras 23 to 25]

       Result; Petition Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The Rastriya Kanya Inter College, Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur is an institution governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The Institution is being run and administered by a Society in the name and style of Rastriya Shiksha Prachar Samittee, Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur. The Institution is a duly recognized and under the grant-in-aid of the State Government. The Committee of Management was superseded several decades ago and the Institution is being managed by the Authorized Controller.

2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Library Peon in the Institution on 2 August 1977. The appointment of the petitioner is not in dispute though it is contended on behalf of the sixth respondent, Principal, Rastriya Kanya Inter College that the petitioner was appointed on 25 June 1975.

3. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Principal terminating the service of the petitioner. The order noted that the appointment being void as the petitioner’s father-in-law Ram Chhabile Srivastava was the Manager of the then Committee of Management. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner retired on 30 June, 2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination order is bad as the prescribed procedure under Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was not followed. The petitioner at no point of time was issued any charge-sheet nor any inquiry was conducted. The petitioner’s service was terminated merely on a notice to show-cause. Further, it has been contended that the Principal being the competent authority, terminated the service of the petitioner merely relying on certain observations made by the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Division, Gorakhpur while deciding the representation of the Society, pursuant to an order dated 28 October 1997 of this Court passed in Rastriya Shiksha Prachar Sammittee, Barahalganj, Gorakhpur through its Secretary/Manager Harishanker Prasad Surraff v. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 36397 of 1997). The Joint Director while deciding the representation on 4.5.2000 made certain observations regarding the appointment of the petitioner which cannot become the basis for termination of service of the petitioner.

5. The only question for determination is as to whether the service of the petitioner could have been terminated by the Principal without following the procedure prescribed under the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act.

6. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed as a Library Peon. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a Library Peon on 02 August 1977, whereas, according to the Principal, the petitioner was appointed on 25 June 1975, the appointment letter was duly signed by Ram Chhabile Srivastava the then Manager of the Institution. On the contrary, the petitioner has relied upon a document pertaining to pay fixation made on 17 January 1990 by the Office of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Gorakhpur duly signed by the Accounts Officer at the office of the D.I.O.S., Gorakhpur recording that the petitioner was appointed on 02 August 1977. The date of appointment of the petitioner is not in issue. The Principal has admitted the appointment of the petitioner, the question therefore, is as to whether a permanent Class IV employee could have been terminated in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Regulations.

7. There is no denial by the Principal in the counter-affidavit to the specific averment made by the petitioner in paragraphs-20 and 22 of the petition, categorically stating that at no point of time any departmental enquiry was conduced, no charge-sheet was issue






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top