Heard Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.B.S. Rathour, Advocate for opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned standing counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.8, the Principal, was inimical towards the petitioner, because the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against him and chargesheet was issued. For mala fide reasons, services of the petitioner were placed under suspension on 01.3.2012, without taking approval of District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur.
Be that as it may, the petitioner continued to be under suspension till now. So-called chargesheet is not specific and, therefore, no specific reply thereto can be furnished. It has also been pointed out that the enquiry committee constituted is of three teachers. Teacher cannot be asked to conduct enquiry against a teacher viz. the petitioner. Thus, the whole process initiated by the respondent is illegal.
Issue notice.
District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur, who is represented through Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate, is directed to call for entire record of the enquiry and see whether the due process of law has been followed or not and file a report before this court.
Let the case be listed on 04.9.2012.
The District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur is directed to do the needful, positively before the date of listing.
In case, subsistence allowance has not been released to the petitioner, it is directed that the allowance be released on or before 06.8.2012.
In case, the needful is not done, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a miscellaneous application before this court.
The respondents are put to notice that in case the subsistence allowance is not released, interest would also be payable to the petitioner and the said amount would be deducted from the salary of the persons found responsible for not releasing the subsistence allowance.
Order Date :- 19.7.2012 A.Nigam