Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20492 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Janta Vaidic Inter College, Baghpat Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Poojan Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shiv Poojan Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 states that he does not want to file counter affidavit and wants that writ petition may be decided at this stage.
The petitioner claims to be the Committee of Management of Janta Vaidic Inter College, Baraut, Baghpat (hereinafter referred to as "College") which is duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees), 1971 is applicable on the College. The respondent No. 3 is Lecturer (Agriculture) in the aforesaid College. On account of some complaint, the Principal of the College recommended for disciplinary action against the respondent No. 3, and consequently, the respondent No. 3 was suspended by the order of Committee of Management dated 15.10.2019.
The Committee of Management forwarded the necessary papers seeking approval to the suspension of the respondent No. 3 from the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat. It appears that the respondent No. 3 submitted representation against his suspension before the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat alleging that life memberships of Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, Manager and Sri Virendra Pal Singh, President have been cancelled and, therefore, the Committee of Management has no right to pass Resolution dated 15.10.2019 suspending him. Acting upon the representation of the respondent No. 3, the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat by the order dated 22.11.2019 revoked the suspension of respondent No. 3. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order primarily on the ground that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principals of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order has neither issued any notice to the petitioner nor afforded opportunity of hearing and hence, the order impugned cannot be sustained being violation of principals of natural justice. He further contends that the finding recorded by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner and Manager of the Committee of Management have been expelled from the membership of the General Body of the Society and said expulsion has not been challenged and as such has become final, hence, the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to pass Resolution is wrong and against record, and if petitioner had been afforded opportunity of hearing, they would have placed the correct facts before the respondent No. 2. Thus, in view of the said fact, non grant of opportunity of hearing has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that infact the President and Manager of the Committee of Management have been expelled from the membership of the Society and as such they have no jurisdiction to pass Resolution to suspend the respondent No.
3. He submits that in the facts of the present case, the order impugned is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order primarily on the ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. The necessary averment in this regard has been made by the petitioner in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 could not produce any material nor point out from the order impugned that the petitioner was issued and afforded opportunity of hearing by the respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order.
In this view of the fact, the order impugned is not sustainable being in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2-District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to pass fresh order after affording due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Jaswant/S.Sharma