IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Shardindu Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 6988 of 2024
Decided On : 13-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging orders of District Inspector of Schools regarding charge of Officiating Principal and suspension - The petitioner was exonerated of charges by Joint Director of Education, but the District Inspector declined to hand over charge citing pending promotion - Court found the refusal unreasonable and unsustainable in law, indicating legal malice. (Paras 10, 18, 28)
(B) Legal Malice - Defined as actions taken without lawful excuse or with disregard to the rights of others - The court emphasized that the actions of the District Inspector were arbitrary and unjustified. (Paras 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the District Inspector of Schools regarding his charge as Officiating Principal and subsequent suspension, asserting that he was exonerated of previous charges.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the orders of the District Inspector and reinstated the petitioner as Officiating Principal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the refusal to hand over charge was justified given the exoneration of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the refusal was arbitrary and constituted legal malice, as the District Inspector acted contrary to the findings of the Joint Director of Education.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties no. 1 to 4, 7 and 8, Sri Indra Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.
2. The opposite party no. 5-Manoj Kumar Mishra is the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh who has been impleaded in his personal capacity as allegations of malice have been levelled against him.
3. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 10.04.2024, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, whereby he has declined to hand over the charge of Officiating Principal of S.K.P. Inter College, Jokhara, Azamgarh (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the college’) to the petitioner till a decision in this regard is taken by the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Uttar Pradesh The petitioner has also challenged the validity of an order dated 24.07.2024, passed by the opposite party no. 7-Authorized Controller of the college/District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as L.T. Grade teacher in S.K.P. Inter College, Azamgarh in the year 1993 with the approval of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. The petitioner’s services were regularized by means of an order dated 27.06.2001. The petitioner was promoted on the aforesaid post of Lecturer (Zoology) on ad-hoc basis by means of an order dated 26.07.1999, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, which was confirmed by the Joint Director of Education by means of an order dated 27.09.2001. The senior most Lecturer who was working as ad-hoc Principal of the college resigned on 16.08.2022 and the petitioner was made Officiating Principal of the college and his signatures were attested by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh 01.09.2022.
5. On 10.07.2023 the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh issued a circular directing all the Managers/Principals of aided intermediate colleges to give updates of the pending writ petitions filed by the employees of the colleges. Upon issuance of the aforesaid circular the petitioner verified the status of the pending court cases, whereupon it came to light that one Ram Sahai Maurya, a Class-IV employee of the college, had filed Writ (A) No. 25304 of 2001, in which this court had passed an interim order dated 13.07.2001 directing payment of salary to the petitioner, but the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.04.2018. On 26.07.2023 the petitioner issued a notice to the aforesaid employee asking about the status of his pending case and a similar notice was issued by the Authorized Controller on 27.07.2023.
6. On 03.08.2023, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the aforesaid Class-IV employee was paid salary after dismissal of his writ petition and on 04.08.2023 the authorized controller issued a similar notice to the petitioner.
7. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice stating that he got knowledge of dismissal of the writ petition only after holding an enquiry in pursuance of the circular dated 10.07.2023 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. He further stated that he had assumed the charge of the post of Principal on 01.09.2022 only and he was never informed about the dismissal of the writ petition on 20.04.2018.
8. On 29.08.2023 the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh passed an order reverting the petitioner to the post of Lecturer on the ground of payment of salary to a Class-IV employee after dismissal of the writ petition and also certain irregularities committed in making admissions to NCC, which ground was not mentioned in the show cause notice.
9. The pet
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 200
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745
The refusal to hand over charge of Officiating Principal was arbitrary and constituted legal malice, as the petitioner was exonerated of previous charges.
The court upheld the suspension of a teacher for misconduct, emphasizing the need for discipline in educational institutions.
The administrative authority must consider prior inquiry findings before taking action against an employee; failure to do so renders the action unjustified.
The approval of a suspension order without a charge sheet and without affording the employee an opportunity to be heard violates principles of natural justice.
Suspension of an employee must be justified by a strong prima facie case of misconduct involving moral turpitude; arbitrary actions violate constitutional rights.
Employment and Service matter - Post of Lecturer - Petitioner has been superannuated he may not be permitted to hold post of officiating Principal but he shall continue in service as Lecturer till co....
The court reaffirmed that a decision cannot be rendered by one authority without providing a hearing to those involved, violating natural justice principles.
Writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy where disciplinary proceedings violate natural justice by rejecting detailed reply to charge-sheet and failing to serve inquiry report properly a....
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.