This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.2.2000 by which the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj (DIOS) has ordered for single operation in the Institution known as Shri Narang Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Ghughli, Maharajganj (the Institution).
The Institution is duly recognized and aided and is imparting education from the level of Prathama upto Acharya. The Institution is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and also received granted-in-aid from the State Government and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 Director of Education, Shiksha Samanya 2 Vistar Anubhag, Allahabad by his letter dated 25.5.1995 sanctioned different posts in the Institution and also directed for making appointment in the Institution with the approval of the Vice Chancellor of the University. In terms of the said order and direction, appointments were made in the Institution on 30.11.1995, which were also approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is the list of 8 teachers. These 8 teachers were accordingly given appointment on 10.12.1995 and they were working as such in the Institution. Their salaries have also been duly paid from time to time. It is further stated that without any notice or reason the payment of salaries of the teachers has been suspended by the State Government and therefore, the teachers filed writ petitions no. 48351 of 1999 and 48352 of 1999. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 18.11.1999 with a direction to the DIOS to decide the representation of the petitioners-teachers in accordance with law within a period of three months.
The contention of the petitioner further is that all of sudden an order has been passed on 13.1.2000 whereby a direction has been given by the DIOS to lodge an FIR against the Committee of Management of the Institution on the ground that for the 8 teachers, who were appointed in the Institution, there was no approval by the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, these appointments have been fraudulently made and salaries have been paid to them illegally. The said order dated 13.1.2000 was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition no. 4613 of 2000 and on 4.2.2000 this Court issued notices to the parties and also stayed the operation of the impugned order to the extent regarding direction for lodging of the F.I.R. but directed that other proceedings may go on.
The contention of the petitioner is that in the meantime, the impugned order dated 19.2.2000 was passed for single operation, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
I have heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
The submission of Dr. Tripathi is that the DIOS who has passed the impugned order is not competent to pass the said order inasmuch as under the second proviso of Section 60-D of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the said power vests in the Dy. Director of Education or by any other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf. The second submission of Dr. Tripathi is that before passing the impugned order of single operation, no show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-Committee of Management and the entire proceedings and finding of the fraudulent appointments of the teachers was taken behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law being ex-parte and violative of principles of nature justice inasmuch as it visits the petitioner with civil consequences.
So far as the first submission raised by Shri Tripathi is concerned, a reference may be made to the provisions of Section 60-D of the Act and second proviso thereto, which reads as under:
"60-D. Procedure for payment of salary in case of certain colleges.-(1) The management of every college shall for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank or post office, a separate account (thereinafter in this Chapter called 'Salary Payment Account') to be operated jointly by a representative of the management and by the Deputy Director or such other officer as may be authorised by the Deputy Director in that behalf :
........................................................................................
Provided further that in the case referred to in sub-section (3), or where in any other case after giving to the Management an opportunity of showing cause, the Deputy Director is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, the Deputy Director may instruct the bank that the Salary Payment Account shall be operated only by himself, or by such other officer as may be authorised by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such instruction."
From a reading of the said provisions there is no doubt that the power to instruct the bank that the Salary Payment Account shall be operated by the Dy. Director or by some other officer duly authorised by him vests with the Dy. Director of Education. There is nothing on the record nor is it demonstrated from the impugned order that any power was conferred upon the DIOS for directing single operation. Therefore, so far as the first question is concerned, it is established from the impugned order itself that the same is wholly without jurisdiction having been passed by the DIOS without any authorization to that effect by the Deputy Director as contemplated by the second proviso of Section 60-D of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
So far as the second question raised by Shri Tripathi that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing the impugned order is concerned, from a perusal of the impugned order it transpires that it does not disclose anywhere that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner-Committee of Management or that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or at any stage the petitioner was heard before the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is of single operation which takes away the power vested in the Committee of Management and before any such power could have been passed show cause notice or opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. The impugned order of single operation visits the petitioner with civil consequences and the law in this regard is well settled and followed from time time right from the case of Dr. Bina Pani Dey till date the law laid down by the Supreme Court consistently has been that the order which visits a person with civil consequences, opportunity of hearing must be given otherwise such an order cannot survive on the anvil of natural justice. Learned standing counsel was not able to point out from the counter affidavit whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order nor whether any sanction had been granted before passing the order of single operation.
In the above backdrop, I find that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj is quashed.
It will however be open for the competent authority to proceed afresh in the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 60-D and the second proviso thereof of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to take a decision in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.8.2012 o.k.