Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1,2 and 3 and Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5.
Sri M.B. Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties no. 4 and 5, same is taken on record.
Since the grievance of both the aforesaid writ petitioners are common and they are aggrieved by the order of suspension order dated 6.11.2020, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
At the outset while assailing the impugned order of suspension dated 6.11.2020 passed by the Manager of the institution in question Sri G.C. Verma has placed reliance of section 16G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. More precisely, he has placed reliance of sub-section 5 and sub-section 6 of section 16G of the Act of 1921. On the strength of aforesaid provisions of law Sri Verma has submitted that suspension order of head of institution or teacher can be passed only by the committee of management and thereafter the same shall be approved by the D.I.O.S. but in the present case the suspension order dated 6.11.2020 has been passed by the Manager herself and for that order committee of management has resolved for suspension on 8.11.2020 and thereafter the D.I.O.S. has approved the suspension vide order dated 10.11.2020. Therefore, as per Sri Verma the suspension order has been passed in violation of said provision of law. He has also submitted that since the legal violation is apparent on the suspension order dated 6.11.2020, therefore, subsequent approval by way of resolution of the committee of management, in view of the provisions of law, is illegal. Besides, the manner in which the D.I.O.S. has approved the suspension order is violative of Regulation 39 of Chapter III of Act of 1921.
Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 has submitted that as a matter of fact looking into the critical condition in the institution in question on 4.11.2020 so indicated in the suspension order itself the Manager has passed such order of suspension pending approval and resolution by the Committee of management as she was aware that order to suspend any teacher can only be passed by the committee of management. It is also an admitted position that the committee of management has passed resolution dated 8.11.2020 approving the order dated 6.11.2020 whereby the Manager had suspended the petitioners of both the writ petitions and thereafter both the suspension orders have been approved by the D.I.O.S. on 10.11.2020 strictly in accordance with law, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of suspension. Sri Singh has also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been given to both the petitioners on 29.11.2020 but the petitioners are not cooperating with the departmental inquiry.
Sri Verma has placed reliance on Annexure no. 5 onwards till Annexure no. 8 whereby the complaint has been made by the teachers and employees of the institution in question including the petitioners against the Manager who was not only exploiting the teachers and employees of the institution in question but also was demanding bribe to get the admissible dues of such employees. Sri Verma has further submitted that the Manager in question is having good association with the S.D.M. of the area, therefore, her conduct is arbitrary since it is not having proper check and balance. Sri Verma has also submitted that the committee of management has appointed the Manager of the institution as inquiry officer and the petitioners are not having any faith upon the Manager and they are convinced that the inquiry against the petitioners would not be conducted and concluded fairly and strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, Sri Verma has drawn attention of this Court towards the amended prayer of the writ petition i.e. (i)(a) as under :
"(i)(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned resolution dated 08.11.2020 passed by the opposite party no. 4 contained as annexure no. 22 to the writ petition and further this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to restrained the opposite parties from holding the inquiry as per decision of the opposite party no. 4 & 5 by the opposite party no. 5 and, if this Hon'ble Court find that the inquiry is necessary the same to conducted either by the opposite party no. 2 or by any other authority under supervision and control of the District Magistrate by any other authority who is not below in the rank of opposite party no. 3."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and also considering the fact that the petitioners are not having trust upon the Manager even before passing the impugned order of suspension, I hereby dispose of both the writ petitions finally at the admission stage with the direction that Manager in question should not be made inquiry officer in the issue and I find it appropriate that the District Magistrate, Raebareli should look into the issue and should appoint any officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate to conduct the inquiry. As soon as the new inquiry officer is appointed by the District Magistrate, the information to this effect has been given to the petitioners and committee of management with promptness. The petitioners shall file their defense reply to the charge-sheet and may also demand a copy of relied upon documents or other relevant documents / material etc. which are necessary for submitting the defence reply of the petitioner. The inquiry officer shall provide such material to the petitioners so that the petitioners could put forth their submissions and reply before the inquiry officer within a period of one month thereafter. After the defence reply being filed by the petitioners, the inquiry officer shall conduct departmental inquiry by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the concerning parties also and conclude the same within two months. Just after conclusion of the departmental inquiry the inquiry report shall be forwarded to the D.I.O.S. for necessary orders strictly in accordance with law.
It is made clear that if the departmental inquiry is not concluded against the petitioner within aforesaid stipulated time, subject to the cooperation of the petitioners with the inquiry officer, the suspension order shall be revoked.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]