JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 11.2.1998 passed by Vitta Evam Lekhadhikari. Basic Shiksha, Shahjahanpur, respondent No. 3. Annexure-4 to the writ petition, under Section 5 of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1978) whereby the account of the institution is to be operated singly instead of jointly, has been challenged primarily on the grounds that the respondent No. 3 had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the safd order ; that no opportunity of hearing or to show cause was given to the petitioners before passing of the said order and that this Court has set aside a similar order in earlier Writ Petition No. 19949 of 1995. which was decided on 27.10.1997.
2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3-Vitta Evam Lekhadhikari Basic Shiksha. Shahjahanpur to which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally decided.
3. Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Subodh Kumar. learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. at considerable length.
4. The petitioner No. 2-Ram Adhar Agnihotri is the Manager of the Committee of Management of Manokaran Kanya Junior High School, Shahjahanpur. Under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1978, the institution has a Bank Account in Allahabad Bank, Shahjahanpur. This account was being operated jointly under the signatures of Ram Adhar Agnihotri and a nominee of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that the impugned order dated 11.2.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition has been passed on insufficient grounds and without any justification.
5. The tone and tenor of the impugned order indicates that the petitioners have failed to obey the orders Issued by the respondent No. 1 and refused to comply with the order to pay salary to the legally appointed teachers and other employees whose salary bills for the December, 1997 onwards have not been submitted. The said order also indicates that the petitioners have committed serious financial irregularities and illegalities on account of which 11 has become necessary to pass an order for single operation of the joint account.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sushil Kumar Gupta. Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha. Shahjahanpur-respondent No. 3, the various irregularities and Illegalities committed by Sri Ram Adhar Agnihotri have been indicated. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 has no regard for the statutory authorities and that he is acting, as a matter of fact, in defiance of the orders passed by the statutory authorities. The petitioner No. 2 was required to submit his explanation and the relevant documents with regard to the illegalities and the financial Irregularities committed by him but he has chosen to keep quiet in the matter. It is also alleged that the petitioner No. 2, who is known for his fraudulent acts in that area, has had the audacity ot forging the signatures of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the letters of approval relating to the appointment of his daughters in the said institution, that he has Involved the institution in wasteful litigations and that he has terminated the services of certain teachers with a view to appoint his own daughters in their vacancies and the termination orders of teachers and non-teaching members are illegal as approval for the same was never accorded by the respondent No- 1. It was also pointed out that in respect of certain employees, the petitioner No. 2 has fabricated their resignation letters. An F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2 for registering a criminal case for his fraudulent acts. It was also maintained that the petitioner No. 2 is illegally continuing as the Manager of the institution without holding fresh elections to constitute the new Committee of Management according to the Scheme of Administration. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the above allegations have been repelled.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that the petitioner No. 2 Ram Adhar Agnihotri is the person, against whom there are various allegations, which have been made in the counter-affidavit. On the face of it, the allegations appear to be true. There is no dispute about the fact that prior to Ram Adhar Agnihotri, his son-in-law, Mahendra Kumar was acting as the Manager. Smt. Sudha Tewari, daughter of Ram Adhar Agnihotri is the Principal of the college. Km. Pratibha Agnihotri and Km. Abha Agnihotri, daughters of Ram Adhar Agnihotri-petitioner No. 2 have also been appointed as teachers in the same college. There are, thus, three daughters of the petitioner No. 2, who have been employed by him as the teachers in the same institution of which Ram Adhar Agnihotri claims himself to be the Manager. It was in the light of this fact that the counsel for respondent No. 3 urged that Ram Adhar Agnihotri is disqualified to be the Manager of the institution or for that matter, an officebearer of the Committee of Management. . He is clinging to the office without holding elections, according to the Scheme of Administration. There appears to be much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in order to accommodate his own daughters in employment the petitioner No. 2-Ram Adhar Agnihotri illegally terminated the services of the regular and duly appointed teachers, namely. Km. Madhuri Devi and Nirmala Misra. The services of these two teachers could not be terminated unless approval of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari-respondent No. 1 had been obtained. What the petitioner No. 2 allegedly has done is that he is said to have forged the signatures of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari-respondent No. 1 on the letter of approval relating to the appointment of his daughters. Salary to Km, Madhuri Devi and Nirmala Misra is not being paid. Services of one Rampal peon have also been terminated without obtaining proper approval from the competent authority. In respect of Smt. Nirmala, Longsri and Pushpa Devi. forged resignation letters are alleged to have been set up by the petitioner No. 2. In order to cover up his misdeeds, it is alleged, the petitioner No. 2 has filed a Suit No. 316 of 1991 and Writ Petition Nos. 10251 of 1998 and 3614 of 1996. He has also filed writ petition through his daughter--Abha Agnihotri, being Civil Misc. Writ No. 7661 of 1990. In view of the admitted position that three daughters of the petitioner have been appointed as Principal and teachers in the same institution, the petitioner No. 2 cannot escape from the conclusion that he is Indulging in acts of favouritism, and nepotism. He had to create vacancies in order to accommodate his daughters and consequently, he terminated the services of some of the teachers and in respect of some of them, he took the plea that they have resigned though the factum of resignation has been seriously challenged.
8. Not only this, the petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have committed financial irregularities in respect of which his attention was drawn by the respondents, but the petitioner No. 2 has chosen a convenient course to keep totally mum. A number of letters have failed to evoke response in the petitioner No. 2. Even before passing the impugned order dated 11.2.1998, the respondent No. 3 had addressed to him a letter dated 1.1.1998 a copy whereof is Anncxure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit and, thereafter again on 23.1.1998, which is Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. Both these letters indicate the circumstances in which respondent No. 3 had to take the extreme step of passing order of single operation of the joint account. The petitioner cannot, therefore, assert that the impugned order was passed without giving a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing. In this behalf, reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Dr. Kajendra Prasad Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Barwa Ratanpur, Dtstt. Deoria and others v. Zila Basic Siksha Adhikari Deoria and another. 1982 UPLBEC 699, placed by Sri S, K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help or assistance since, as already indicated above, notices were actually given to the petitioners but the petitioner No. 2 deliberately avoided to submit the reply. The respondent No. 3 has done all. what was within his means to elicit information or explanation from the petitioner No. 2 but the latter adopted an attitude of total Indifference and culpable silence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 2. If the petitioner No. 2 had himself failed to avail of the opportunity, he has to thank himself and no blame can be laid at the door of the respondent No. 3. In view of the facts disclosed in the counter-affidavit, it was an eminently suited case in which an order of single operation under Section 5 of the Act of 1978 should have been passed. The order cannot be said to .be without any justification. As a matter of fact, the impugned order is founded on solid grounds.
9. As regards the authority and Jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 to pass the order of single operation of the joint account, it is to be seen that the impugned order itself indicates that the State Government by Government Order dated 7.8.1986 has authorised the Vltta Evain Lekhadhikari. Basic Shiksha to exercise power under Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1978. A copy of the aforesaid Government Order has been brought on record as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. The expression 'Education Officer' for the purpose of aforesaid provision is to include Vitta Evam Lekhadhikari, Basic Shiksha. It is, therefore, an indubitable fact that the respondent No. 3 has the power and authority to pass the impugned order.
10. Sri S, K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that on an earlier occasion, similar order of single operation of account was passed in the year 1991 which was made the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Misc. Writ No. 19949 of 1995. It was pointed out that the said writ petition was allowed and. therefore, on the basis of the reasonings adopted in the decision of the earlier writ petition, the present writ petition be also allowed. I find it difficult to agree with Sri Mehrotra on the point for one simple reason that in the earlier order, whereby Writ Petition No. 19949 of 1995 was decided on 27.9.95, it is mentioned that Vitta Evam Lekhadhikari had no power to pass an order and the said order should have been passed by the Education Officer which means the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. In that decision, Government Order authorising the respondent No. 3 to pass orders on behalf of the Basle Shiksha Adhikari was not noticed. In the earlier decision, the view taken was that before passing order of single operation of the accounts, no show-cause notice was given nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded. This conclusion cannot be drawn in the instant case for the reasons, stated above that the petitioner No. 2 was required to show cause by issuing letters, copies whereof are Annexures-C.A. 2 and C.A. 3. but the petitioner No. 2 himself failed to submit the satisfactory reply.
Therefore, the decision in the earlier writ petition, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is of no help to the petitioners in the present case.
11. In the result. I find that the impugned order dated 11.2.1998, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, has been rightly passed by the respondent No. 3 and the said order is well justified in the circumstances in which it has been passed.
12. Before parting, it may be mentioned that the affairs of the petitioners' institution, particularly the conduct of the petitioner No. 2. are required to be thoroughly enquired into/investigaied by a competent authority so that the recognised and aided institutions may not be treated as commercial establishment for personal gains and benefits. It is expected that the Director Basic Education. U. P., Lucknow shall not shirk in his responsibility to enquire into the affairs of the petitioners' institution, more particularly, into the allegations of financial irregularities committed by petitioner No. 2, himself or through a senior officer of the department. In the broad based enquiry, the enquiry officer shall also go into the various allegations made against petition No. 2, particularly with regard to alleged financial irregularities and other acts of omission and commission on his part. It is also to be seen whether the petitioner No. 2 has earned disqualification on account of appointment of his three daughters in the same institution and whether it would be in the interest of the institution to continue him as Manager. The Director, after due enquiry within reasonable period, shall also take a decision in the matter whether the petitioners' institution is entitled to seek Government aid and financial assistance.
13. The writ petition having turned out without any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.
14. In the light of observations made in the body of this judgement, Registry of the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment and order to the Director, Basic Education, U. P., Lucknow for compliance.