JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the appellant, Sri M.N. Pathak appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2006 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 14672 of 2003 filed by the appellant challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are; respondent No. 4 was working as Class-IV employee in Sri Krishna Intermediate College Semara, Kathkuia, District Kushinagar. The services of respondent No. 4 were terminated by the Principal on 20th August, 1997. After the termination of services of respondent No. 4, the appellant claims to be appointed as Class-IV employee. The respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 5814 of 2002 stating that he is a Class-IV employee but he is not being permitted to function in the institution. This Court vide order dated 8th February, 2002 disposed of the writ petition directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the representation of respondent No. 4. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 3rd March, 2003 directing that respondent No. 4 be reinstated and be paid salary from the date of reinstatement. The District Inspector of Schools in the said order held that termination of services of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 20th August, 1997 is not valid. Two grounds were given by District Inspector of Schools for coming to the said conclusion, firstly it was stated that before passing the termination order the principles of natural justice were not satisfied and secondly that termination of respondent No. 4 was made without obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as required under Chapter-III Regulation-31 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Against the order of the District Inspector of Schools the writ petition was filed by the appellant, who claims to be subsequent appointee, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2006.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, challenging the order impugned, contended that the District Inspector of Schools committed error in taking the view that prior approval was required before termination of a Class-IV employee. He further contended that the reason for corning to the conclusion by the District Inspector of Schools that principles of natural justice have been violated was that the letters were sent not from the nearest post office but from the post office situate at Basdiha.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents had sent information of his illness and also the medical certificate after July, 1995 for the entire period to the Principal. It is further submitted that no charge-sheet was received by respondent No. 4 and the order of termination was invalid.
6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has upheld the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003. The learned Single Judge took the view that respondent No. 4 was not validly removed, hence the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner was not in accordance with law. We have also perused the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003 by which respondent No. 4 was directed to be reinstated. One of the grounds taken in the order that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not taken, hence the termination is invalid is erroneous. Regulation 31 of Chapter-III, which is relevant for the purpose, is extracted below:
[31. Punishment to employees for which prior sanction from Inspector or Regional Inspectress would be essential may be any one o1 the following:
(1) Discharge, (2) Removal or Termination, (3) Demotion in grade, (4) Reduction in emoluments.
Principal or Headmaster would be competent to give above punishment to Fourth class employees. In case of punishment awarded by competent officer, the Fourth class employee may appeal to Management Committee. This appeal must be preferred within one month of the date of intimation of the punishment and Management Committee on receipt of appeal will decide the matter within six weeks. On consideration of all necessary records and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee, if he wants to appear before the Management Committee, it will give its decision.
Fourth class employee would also have a right to represent against the decision of the Management Committee on his appeal to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls School within one month of the date of intimation of the decision:
Provided that if Management Committee does not give its decision on above appeal within stipulated period of six weeks, the concerned employee after the expiry of above six weeks may represent directly to District Inspector of School/Regional Inspectress of Girls School.
District Inspector of School/Regional Inspectress of Girls School would give its decision within three months from the date of receipt of the representation and his decision would be final.
Regulations 86 to 98 of this Chapter would apply to presentation, consideration and decision of the representation with necessary changes].
8. Although the opening words of Regulation 31 provides that punishment to employee requires prior sanction from the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools but the later part of the said regulation provides that Principal or the Headmaster would be competent to give the above punishment to Class-IV employee. The first part of the said regulation specifically provides that prior sanction from Inspector for awarding punishment to employee is necessary whereas in the next part of the said regulation it is said that for Class-IV employee the Principal or Headmaster would be competent to give punishment. Further with regard to punishment awarded to a Class-IV employee, right of appeal has been given to the employee before the Management Committee within one month. The Class-IV employee has also been given right of representation against the decision of the Management Committee on his appeal to the District Inspector of Schools. The proviso to the said regulation further provides that if the Management Committee does not give a decision on the appeal of the employee within six weeks, the employee has right to represent the District Inspector of Schools directly. Had the prior approval for awarding the punishment to the Class-IV employee was also required, there was no object and purpose for giving the right of representation to the same authority. The provisions of seeking prior approval for awarding punishment from the District Inspector of Schools and the provisions for right of representation to the District Inspector of Schools cannot go together. The above intend is further clear from the subsequent regulations of Chapter-III, i.e., Regulations 44 and 44-A. Regulation 44 clearly mentions that the Inspector or Regional Inspectress shall- for the purpose of proceedings as envisaged in Sub-section 3(a) of Section 16(G) of the Act or for adjudication of proposed punishment against any employee of clerical cadre within six weeks of receipt of complete proposal inform the Management about his decision. Regulation 44-A further provides that Inspector or Regional Inspectress may accept or reject the punishment proposed in respect of employee of clerical cadre. Had the prior approval of inspector was also contemplated for Class-IV employees under Regulation 31, the mention of only Class-III employee in Regulations 44 and 44-A would not have been there. Regulations 44 and 44-A are extracted below:
44. The Inspector or Regional Inspectress shall for the purpose of proceedings as envisaged in Sub-section 3(a) of Section 16(G) of the Act or for adjudication of proposed punishment against any employee of clerical cadre within six weeks of receipt of complete proposal inform the Management about his/her decision. If incomplete proposal is received from the Management, the sanctioning authority shall ask to re-submit the complete proposal and period of six weeks as proposed in this regulation would be counted from the date of receipt of complete papers to the sanctioning authority. These papers may be sent either by registered post or by special bearer.
44-A. (1) The Inspector of Inspectress may accept or reject the punishment proposed in respect of employees of clerical cadre. He may either extend or reduce it:
Provided that Inspector of Inspectress would give, a notice to the concerned employee before issuing an order in respect of punishment to show cause within fifteen days of service of the notice as to why he should not be punished as proposed.
(2) Either party within a period of one month from the date of receipt of information may appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education against an order of Inspector of Inspectress and Regional Deputy Director of Education, after any such additional enquiry, if any, which he may deem fit, can affirm or cancel or modify the order, which will be final. On appeal of an employee, decision of Regional Deputy Director of Education would be given within a period of three months.
9. The scheme of the Regulations 31 to 45 of Chapter- III, thus, do not provide that prior approval is required for awarding punishment of removal or termination of a Class-IV employee from the District Inspector of Schools.
10. The view of the District Inspector of Schools that the removal of respondent No. 4 was to be made after taking prior approval is erroneous. With regard to the observation of the District Inspector of Schools that respondent No. 4 was not given any opportunity before passing the order of termination, it is suffice to say that although the said conclusion has been recorded but the District Inspector of Schools has not examined the facts in detail. He has only observed that letters were not sent to respondent No. 4 from the nearest post office. We are afraid that the said reason cannot be said to be valid reason. If the registered letter was sent with correct address, the fact that it was sent from a post office which was not nearest is not of much consequence. The District Inspector of Schools ought to have considered the facts of the case in more detail to find out as to whether before removing respondent No. 4 from service opportunity was given to him and whether there was compliance in the disciplinary inquiry of the Regulations 36 and 37 of Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Without adverting to the relevant facts and materials the District Inspector of Schools has jumped on the conclusion that principles of natural justice is violated. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that matter need to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools again with regard to alleged removal of respondent No. 4. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion as to whether termination of respondent No. 4 was made after following rules of natural justice or not and it is for the District Inspector of Schools to examine the facts and take a decision.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we set-aside the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 3rd March, 2003 as well as the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 2006 and remand the matter to the District Inspector of Schools for consideration afresh with regard to the alleged removal of respondent No. 4. We have been informed that respondent No. 4, in the meantime, retired on 31st August, 2005 after having joined the duties after the order dated 3rd March, 2003. It will be open for the District Inspector of Schools to decide the issue, as aforesaid and pass other consequential orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.