Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
Dr. Neyaz Ahmad Daudi - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Education And Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. - 49112 of 2005
Decided On : 15-05-2019
For the Petitioner: G.K. Singh, A.A. Khan, Faheem Ahmad, Gulab Chandra, Muqeem Ahmad, S.K. Singh, V.K. Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ajay Bhanot, B.N. Pandey, Faheem Ahmad, J.B. Singh, J.P. Singh, M. Shahid, Nilinjay Pandey, R.P.Singh, S.C., Santosh Kumar Nigam
Headnote:
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 – CCS Pension Rules, 1972 – Rule 9 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Petitioner was Principal of Inter College, an Institution having due recognition under Act, 1921 – It is a minority institution petitioner assailed resolution of Committee of Management of Institution resolving to dismiss him from service and communication of said decision to petitioner by letter – Whether on account of bias on part of Convener of Sub-Committee, entire proceedings would be rendered void or defect is a curable one – Held, Appellant already reached age of superannuation and no fresh enquiry initiated in matter if earlier proceedings are rendered null and void for violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice – Regarding seriousness of charges levelled against petitioner as well as fact that order of punishment is quashed on ground of violation of principles of natural justice and not on account of fact that charges do not stand proved considers it proper to direct payment of 50% of salary to petitioner from date of his dismissal till he attained age of superannuation and for payment of retiral benefits by treating him to be in continuous service – Directions issued – Petition allowed. (Paras: 23, 31&32)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was Principal of Inter College, an Institution having due recognition under Act, 1921 – It is a minority institution petitioner assailed resolution of Committee of Management of Institution resolving to dismiss him from service and communication of said decision to petitioner by letter – Whether on account of bias on part of Convener of Sub-Committee, entire proceedings would be rendered void or defect is a curable one.
Findings of the court:
Order imposing punishment held to be illegal on account of breach of principles of natural justice, matter has to be sent back to disciplinary authority for conducting fresh enquiry but for an important supervening event – Appellant already reached age of superannuation and no fresh enquiry initiated in matter if earlier proceedings are rendered null and void for violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice – Regarding seriousness of charges levelled against petitioner as well as fact that order of punishment is quashed on ground of violation of principles of natural justice and not on account of fact that charges do not stand proved considers it proper to direct payment of 50% of salary to petitioner from date of his dismissal till he attained age of superannuation and for payment of retiral benefits by treating him to be in continuous service – Directions issued.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Heard Sri H.P. Sahi for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri J.P. Singh assisted by Sri Fahim Ahmad for respondent Nos. 3 & 5. Sri R.P. Singh, who has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 is not present, even in revised call.
2. The petitioner was Principal of Shibli National Inter College, Azamgarh, an Institution having due recognition under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is a minority institution. The petitioner has assailed the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Institution dated 13.6.2005 resolving to dismiss him from service and the communication of the said decision to the petitioner by letter dated 18.6.2005.
3. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by serving a charge sheet dated 19.12.2004 containing as many as fifteen charges. Some of the charges are of serious nature relating to embezzlement of scholarship money and disbursement of scholarship to students not eligible for the same. The petitioner contested the proceedings by filing his reply dated 11.1.2005, in which he denied all the charges levelled against him. It was followed by issuance of a second charge sheet dated 20.1.2005 by the Sub-Committee constituted for conducting disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply on 4.2.2005 and 7.2.2005. One of the principal objection raised by the petitioner in his replies and objections dated 13.2.2005 and 21.2.2005 was regarding the constitution of the Sub-Committee/Enquiry Committee, which had to enquire into the charges levelled against him. The Convener of the Sub-Committee was Ehsan Ahmad, Advocate. Two other members of the Sub-Committee were S. Rizqan Masood and Abu Saad alias Shamshi. According to the petitioner, the Convener of the Sub-Committee Ehsan Ahmad, Advocate had himself made several complaints against the petitioner relating to the same charges before the Educational Authorities as well as the State Government. The petitioner also alleged that Abu Saad alias Shamshi, member of the Enquiry Committee is nephew of Akhtar Rasid Khan, who had also made similar complaints against the petitioner. He is also nephew of Akhtar Rasid Khan, Secretary of the Committee of Management, who had also made complaints against the petitioners. The petitioner also filed specific application/objection requesting for change of the Sub-Committee, as he did not expect a fair and impartial enquiry by it. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Convener of the Sub-Committee by the following order : -
“Heard, so far as the allegations made in Para 3 of the application in concerned, it is absolutely wrong to say that I have ever been complainant against Sri N.A. Daudi or signed in his signature as complainant on any application, on earlier correspondence made by you, I have already apprised you regarding any complaint by me on earlier occasion.”
4. The Sub-Committee, after rejecting the objection of bias, proceeded to conclude the enquiry and submitted its report dated 22.4.2005. The petitioner once again submitted his objection against the enquiry report and in which also, the plea of bias was reiterated. The Committee of Management by its resolution dated 13.6.2005 impugned herein, resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service and which was communicated to the petitioner by impugned communication dated 18.6.2005.
5. Sri H.P. Sahi, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry proceedings stand vitiated, as the Convener of the Sub-Committee and one of its members were themselves complainant at different stages, therefore, they were not eligible to be part of the Enquiry Committee. It is submitted that a person cannot be judge in his own case. The Convener and one of its member having themselves made complaint against the petitioner levelling most of the charges, they could not have enquired into the same. It is also submitted that the Committee of Management wr
