Committee of Management Shyam Sundar Badri Prasad Kanya Inter College, Babhnan, Basti and its Manager Amar Chandra have preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 21.08.2008 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has refused to approve the suspension order of respondent no. 3.
A brief reference to factual aspect would suffice; The Shyam Sundar Badri Prasad Kanya Inter College, Babhnan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') is recognized by the High School & Intermediate Education Board. The education is imparted upto the level of Intermediate. It does not receive any grant in aid. The provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations framed thereunder are applicable to the institution. The affairs of the institution are managed by the Committee of Management, respondent no.2 is its Manager.
The respondent no. 3 is the Principal of the Institution. It is stated that there were serious charges of financial irregularities, lack of integrity and lack of devotion to duties. In addition to those, she lacks essential qualification for the post of Principal. Therefore, for the said reasons, the Committee of Management was not satisfied with the functioning of respondent no. 3. It placed her under suspension by the order dated 06.06.2008. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval in terms of Section 16G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said proposal has been rejected by the impugned order by District Inspector of Schools.
I have heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools is ex facie illegal and it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No opportunity has been afforded to the Committee of Management before passing the said order. He further submitted that a perusal of the order of District Inspector of Schools would indicate that the District Inspector of Schools has acted as Disciplinary Authority and has recorded a finding that the charges are not proved. Therefore, he has travelled beyond his jurisdiction.
He further urged that a perusal of the charge sheet would go to show that there are very serious charges against the respondent no. 3 and in view of the settled law laid down by this Court the District Inspector of Schools was not called upon to record a finding with regard to seriousness of the charges. He had limited jurisdiction under Section 16G(6) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. He has exceeded his jurisdiction by recording finding with regard to the charges.
Sri Singh has relied upon a judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Maharajganj Inter College And Anr. Vs. District Inspector Of Schools, Maharajganj And Another 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1765. Relevant part of the order is quoted herein:
"If the suspension is to be disapproved on consideration of any defect pointed out by the concerned teacher by means of a representation, opportunity has to be afforded to the Management before disapproving of the suspension on any such defect in the proceedings."
Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as District Inspector of Schools has gone through the charges and he was satisfied that the charges were frivolous. The Committee of Management in order to harass the respondent no.3 has placed her under suspension.
Learned standing counsel has also submitted that no interference is called for as the order is reasoned and speaking order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and considered their respective submissions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order.
A perusal of the order of District Inspector of Schools would also go to show that the version of the Committee of Management has not been taken into consideration. Paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition has been replied in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3.
A perusal of the statement made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit makes it is clear that evasive reply has been given by respondent no. 3 and no reply with regard to opportunity has been given.
As regards the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Inspector of Schools was not required to record the finding with regard to charges as a disciplinary authority, I find some force in the said submission. This Court in Writ A No. 39441 of 2012 (Committee of Management Moti Lal Nehru Smarak Inter College & Another Vs. District Inspector of Schools Azamgarh & Others) decided on 03.09.2012 has held that the District Inspector of Schools should not act as an Inquiry Officer and record his finding on the charges against the Principal/Teachers.
After perusal of the order of District Inspector of Schools, I am satisfied that he has misdirected himself and recorded the finding regarding charges which are unsustainable, for the reason that the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be completed and it is the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to pass the appropriate order on the basis of inquiry report submitted to it after completion of the proceedings.
Be that as it may, the order of the District Inspector of Schools is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice alone. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 21.08.2008 is quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.9.2012 Sandeep