The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the respondent no. 8-Principal, Madarsa Darul Uloom Masudia Misbahia Salarganj, Bahraich, City and District Bahraich and the original order dated 8.6.2014 passed by the respondent no. 7-Manager of the said Institution.
Heard Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1,2 and 3, Shri Arif Mohammad Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Moinuddin for the respondents no. 6, 7 and 8 and Shri Afzal Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5.
The matter is being finally heard and decided with the consent of all the learned counsel.
The submission of Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 8.6.2014 has been passed by the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution without there being any resolution of the Committee of Management inasmuch as the impugned order itself mentions that the order be placed before the Committee of Management through an agenda. He therefore submits that there was no resolution of the Committee of Management on the date when the impugned order of suspension dated 8.6.2014 was passed and therefore the same was bad in law. Consequently the order dated 9.6.2014 has been passed by the Principal of the Institution, which is also illegal.
Shri Arif Mohammad Khan, learned senior counsel submitted that there are serious charges against the petitioner of misbehaviour and his work was also not satisfactory and that the charge sheet dated 27.6.2014 has also been issued to the petitioner and sent to him by registered post.
Shri Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner states that till date he has no information whether the charge sheet has been received by the petitioner or not. In any case the validity of the charge sheet is not in question before the Court. All that has to be examined is whether the order of suspension dated 8.6.2014 and consequential order dated 9.6.2014 are valid or not.
From a perusal of the order dated 8.6.2014 it will be noticed that by the said order the petitioner has been placed under suspension and it has further been directed that an emergent meeting of the Committee of Management be called and the matter be placed before the Committee of Management through an agenda. This clearly shows that there was no resolution of the Committee of Management before passing of the order of suspension dated 8.6.2014.
In this view of the matter the impugned orders dated 8.6.2014 as well as the consequential order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the respondents no. 8 and 7 respectively are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
However, the respondents will be at liberty to pass fresh order of suspension after resolution of the Committee of Management, if any. It is also made clear that quashing of the suspension order will have no effect upon the validity of the charge sheet or any departmental proceedings which may be held by the respondents against the petitioner on the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 27.6.2014. It is further provided that the concerned respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 27.6.2014 and conclude the same within a period of four months.
It is expected that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental proceedings.
Order Date :- 2.7.2014 o.k.