Disciplinary proceedings against educational staff require an approved Scheme of Administration; absence of such approval renders termination orders void.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Writ-A No.14412 of 2023

1. These two writ petitions were connected together and nominated to this Bench under the order passed by the Hon’ble Chief justice. Affidavits have been exchanged and, therefore, both the petitions are being decided finally with the consent of parties.

2. Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kumar Sahu, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 3, Sri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, and Sri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5.

The Challenge

3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging two orders. By the first order impugned dated 12.01.2018, the services of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Teacher (Alia) in the respondent-Madarsa, were terminated by the Committee of Management and by the second order impugned dated 20.08.2018, the Registrar/ Inspector (respondent no.2) has withdrawn the financial approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Alia) by the Committee of Management of the respondent-Madarsa on 27.07.2009. The Madarsa came on grant-in-aid on 30.08.2010. Thereafter, papers were forwarded by the Committee of Management to the Registrar (respondent no.2) on 15.09.2010 for according financial approval to the services/ appointment of the petitioner. Financial approval was accorded on 19.10.2010 and, consequently, the petitioner started receiving salary from the State Exchequer.

5. After a period of seven years, some dispute arose as to the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment. According to the petitioner, he had submitted an experience certificate showing his working from 08.02.1998 to 30.10.2001 in some Madarsa of Siddharth Nagar, whereas, as per the Committee of Management, there was another experience certificate showing working of the petitioner in a different Madarsa of Siddharth Nagar itself from 2006 to 2009. The petitioner was suspended on 30.10.2017, which order was assailed by him by filing a Writ Petition No.52997 of 2017, in which suspension order was stayed. Services of the petitioner were, thereafter, terminated vide order dated 12.01.2018 (first order impugned) on the ground that despite issuance of show cause notices by the Committee of Management, he did not appear to respond to the allegations and, consequently, after examining the record available, decision to terminate his services was taken.

6. The petitioner filed Writ-A No.5521 of 2018 assailing the termination order. The said writ petition was disposed by order dated 22.02.2018 recording a consensus between the learned counsel for the parties that the Registrar had power to look into the merits of the termination order and the procedure adopted before passing the order. Accordingly, the Registrar was directed to call for entire record of disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner, to examine the same and to pass an order in the matter. It is pursuant to the said order of writ court that the order dated 20.08.2018, (second order impugned) has been passed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the orders impugned are without jurisdiction. He contends that at the time of petitioner’s appointment, there were no statutory Rules framed and, in fact, the services were governed by Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Evam Sewa Niyamawali, 1987. He submits that in the year 2004, U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 was enacted which contained power to frame regulations by the Board under Section 20 of the Act. The Board, in exercise of such powers, framed Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Parsian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016. He submits that at the time when the services of the petitioner wer