JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The suspension of the Principal of the recognised intermediate college on the charge of embezzlement etc., has been engaging the attention of this Court time and again and at present two writ petitions are pending in respect of the same.
3. Facts in short relevant for these petitions are: the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 29th June, 2005 resolved to suspend the Principal of the institution pending enquiry into charges of financial embezzlement etc. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, in exercise of powers under Section 16(g) (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 disapproved the said order of suspension vide order dated 22nd July, 2005. The order so passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52780 of 2005. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29th July, 2005 and this Court required the District Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter in light of the observations made in the judgment.
4. The District Inspector of Schools, in compliance of the judgment and order of this Court, passed an order dated 18th November, 2005, wherein he again disapproved the order of suspension passed by the Committee of Management. The order so passed by the District Inspector of Schools has been challenged by means of first writ petition, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005), by the Committee of Management. In this petition after hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court was pleased to stay the operation of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th November, 2005 and provided that the District Inspector of Schools may pass afresh order in accordance with law and in light of the directions issued by this Court under judgment and order dated 29th July, 2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52780" of 2005 after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
5. While the aforesaid writ petition was still pending, the District Inspector of Schools by means of the order dated 15/17th July, 2006 has again disapproved the order of suspension passed by the Committee of Management referred to above. It is against this order of the District Inspector of Schools that the second writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39621 of 2006) has been filed by the Committee of Management.
6. It has been further stated that the departmental proceedings initiated against the Principal of the institution have already been completed. A resolution has been passed proposing the punishment of dismissal of service by the Committee of Management, this resolution has been transmitted to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, with all records, in view of the Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 for approval of the punishment proposed as early as on 5th November, 2005 through the office of the District Inspector of Schools. An advance copy of the proposal was also submitted before the UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board for appropriate action.
7. On record, are the letters dated 15th February, 2006 and dated 3rd July, 2006 forwarded by the Secretary, UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad requiring the District Inspector of Schools to transmit the original documents, as have been submitted by the Committee of Management qua the punishment proposed along with other relevant documents, as required under UP. Act No. 5 of 1982.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that because of lapse on the part of the District Inspector of Schools, the said documents have not been transmitted by the District Inspector of Schools to UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, as a result whereof, no decision qua the punishment proposed, could be taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is based on same grounds, as were subject matter of consideration in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005, wherein an interim order has already been granted by this Court dated 25th November, 2005.
9. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the departmental proceedings against the Principal of the institution have already been completed and only approval of the UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad is wanted, it would not be fair to restore back the Principal of the institution in the office, inasmuch as the charges of embezzlement have been found proved in the departmental enquiry.
10. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, on behalf of Principal of the institution, however, submits that the entire proceedings against the Principal are mala fide. At the first instance, the Committee of Management was not agreeable to the appointment of respondent (Principal). He was forced to file a writ petition for the same which resulted in his appointment as officiating principal. On after short period of his appointment, he has been placed under suspension and departmental proceedings have been initiated only to ensure that he is kept out of office.
11. Learned Counsel for the Principal further submits that the mala fide are apparent from the record of writ petitions. Violation of Regulation 36 (1) (g) and Regulation 40 (a) is established, inasmuch as the petitioner was placed under suspension under order dated 1st July, 2005, while a copy of the charges had admittedly been served upon the Principal only on 11th July, 2005 i.e. after expiry of the prescribed period of 7 days and therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools.
12. Lastly it is further contended on behalf of the principal of the institution that the charge-sheet as served upon the petitioner was vague and did not contain specific charges therefore, violation of Regulation 36 (1) (g), is also apparent.
13. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
14. There is serious disputes between the parties with regard to the proceedings, which have been taken against the Principal of the institution. Issues are of fact as well as of law. It is apparent that the departmental proceedings, which have been initiated against the petitioner, have now reached their end and are engaging the attention of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board with regard to the grant of approval to the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management. There are charges of misappropriation of money etc. found proved in departmental enquiry against the Principal of the institution (this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations so made). It is further not in dispute that the Principal of the institution has continued under suspension since 2005, has been kept out of office of Principal since 29th June, 2005 (although according to the petitioner the same was contrary to law).
15. In these set of facts, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the rival contentions qua the order revoking the suspension of the Principal of the institution, inasmuch as interest of justice would be served, if the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board is required to take the final decision on proposed punishment of the Committee of Management, in a time bound manner after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
16. Accordingly, it is provided that the District Inspector of Schools shall transmit all relevant records received from the Committee of Management qua the proposed punishment against the Principal of the institution within ten days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. Immediately after receipt of the papers, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board shall fix a date for affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and for filing their respective representations/documents. He shall also permit the exchange of documents.
17. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board shall take final decision in the matter in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order. The entire exercise as aforesaid must be completed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board on or before 3rd October, 2006. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties and there should not be a cause for any complaint being made by any of the parties that the order passed today has not been complied with either by the District Inspector of Schools or by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board.
18. This leads us to the issue as to whether the Principal of the institution would be entitled to his full salary for the back period commencing from the date 60 days expired from the date the order of suspension was passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
19. Section 16(g)(1) of the UP. Intermediate Education Act provides that no order of suspension shall remain in operation after expiry of 60 days, except when approved in writing by the District Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid Section 16 (g) (1) has been subject matter of consideration in the Full Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 in the case of Chandra Bhushan Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. The Full Bench of this Court has held that if the order of suspension has not been approved within 60 days or refused approval in writing, it would mean that such order of suspension ceases to exist in eyes of law after expiry of 60 days. Full Bench of this Court further held that the power of the District Inspector of Schools to approve such suspension after 60 days is not lost. However, if approval is granted subsequently by the District Inspector of Schools, the suspension would revive from the date the approval is granted. Meaning thereby that for the interregnum i.e. the period between the date when 60 days expired and the date approval is granted in writing, it is presumed that the order of suspension was not existing in the eye of law. Accordingly for this interregnum period Principal or teacher cornered is entitled to payment of full salary as well as for being permitted to continue in the office.
20. The legal position in that regard has also been explained by the Court in the judgment reported in 1992 (2) UPLBEC 132 and 1994 (23) ALR 334.
21. In the facts of the case, there is no order of District Inspector of Schools approving the suspension of the Principal of the institution. Consequently the order of suspension passed by the Committee of Management ceases to exist in the eyes of law after expiry of 60 days of its being communicated and therefore, the principal of the institution becomes entitled for full salary for the period subsequents to expiry of 60 days form the date he was placed under suspension. Accordingly it is provided that the principal of the institution shall be entitled to his full salary for the period the order of suspension was non-existent in the eyes of law i.e. 28th August, 2005 till the conclusion of the proceedings by the UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as directed herein above.
22. Till such decision by the UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as aforesaid, the Principal of the institution shall be entitled to his full salary, it shall be open to the Committee of Management of the institution to take work or not to take work of the post of principal from the petitioner.
23. With the aforesaid directions/observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally.