Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2151 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH MANN v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BASIC)

2003-09-16

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 9. 8. 1989 and 22. 2. 1992, Annexures-18 and 21 to the writ petition passed by opposite parties No. 2 and 1 respectively. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master in Swami Kalyan deo Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Garhi Navabad, Muzaffarnagar on 22. 10. 1984. After the approval was granted by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide its order dated 9. 8. 1989 the manager by its order-dated 11. 8. 1989 terminated the services of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 22. 2. 1992. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a three member enquiry committee constituted under the Chairmanship of respondent No. 4 was illegal, as the Chairman-respondent no. 4 was highly inimical to the petitioner being a witness in the enquiry and that this fact had neither been considered by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari at the time of granting approval nor by the appellate authority, though this point was raised by the petitioner in the appeal. It has been further submitted that the charge-sheet given to him was absolutely vague. It has also been submitted that neither any witness was examined by the enquiry committee nor any document was proved and the copy of the enquiry report was also not given to him for submitting reply to the charges and as such the enquiry conducted against the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained and that in view of the aforesaid reasons the charges have not been proved and the enquiry report is illegal. ( 5 ) AND the rules regarding disciplinary matter and C. C. A. Rules will apply to the Government teachers of basic schools as such the enquiry was illegal for not following procedure prescribed under Rule 55 of the said rules. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master on 22. 10. 1984. His services were terminated in accordance with the resolution dated 3. 4. 1989 and the decision of the Committee of Management was communicated to him by the Manager vide letter dated 11. 8. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as Head Master on 22. 10. 1984. His services were terminated in accordance with the resolution dated 3. 4. 1989 and the decision of the Committee of Management was communicated to him by the Manager vide letter dated 11. 8. 1989. Writ Petition No. 10327 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11. 8. 1989, which was dismissed by this Court on 24. 4. 1990 on the ground of statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal. Thereafter he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by order dated 22. 2. 1992 approving the termination order by the Director of Education (Basic ). ( 7 ) IT is further submitted that under the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, it is the responsibility of the Committee of Management to fill up a vacancy of the post of Head Master or Assistant Teacher of a recognized school, to conduct the disciplinary proceedings and punish the delinquent employee in accordance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid rules but these rules do not provide for giving the copy of the enquiry report to the person charged for raising objections in appeal. ( 8 ) HE also submits that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and adequate opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the termination order, which is evident from the letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar dated 12. 5. 1989. He contends that the termination order passed by the Committee of Management was approved by the District Basic education Officer, Muzaffarnagar and from perusal of the impugned order dated 22. 2. 1992, it is evident that all the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by respondent No. 1 in his reasoned order and the punishment imposed on him is proportionate to the charges. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 2001 (3) AWC 2324 ; 2001 (4) ESC 1891 (All) ; State v. Harendra Arora and Anr. , AIR 2001 SC 2319 , wherein the Apex Court considering Rule 55 (deleted on 27. 4. 1977) has held that the said rule embodies in it nothing but reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice. , 2001 (3) AWC 2324 ; 2001 (4) ESC 1891 (All) ; State v. Harendra Arora and Anr. , AIR 2001 SC 2319 , wherein the Apex Court considering Rule 55 (deleted on 27. 4. 1977) has held that the said rule embodies in it nothing but reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice. Therefore, if enquiry report is not furnished, the same ipso facto would not invalidate the order or punishment unless delinquent officer has been prejudiced thereby. In the aforesaid case the petitioner who absented without any information and against whom disciplinary enquiry was held after giving him charge-sheet, and serving show cause notice dismissal order passed against him is not disproportionate. ( 9 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it appears that pursuant to the order dated 22. 7. 1988 passed by the Court, charge-sheet dated 1. 2. 1989 was served on the petitioner containing that the petitioner deliberately absented himself from the school and inspite of repeated request, he did not join the service, which amounted to dereliction of duties and also insubordination. ( 10 ) IT further appears from the record that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of termination order as well as prior to according approval by the District basic Education Officer which is evident from letter dated 12. 5. 1989. The petitioner has himself admitted in his application dated 21. 7. 1989 that he appeared before the inquiry committee on 19. 3. 1989 and participated in the enquiry proceedings. The resolution dated 3. 4. 1989 passed by the Committee of Management with regard to termination of the services of the petitioner, was approved by the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar vide its letter dated 9. 8. 1989. ( 11 ) THE contention of the petitioner that C. C. A. Rules would apply to teacher of Basic Schools and that enquiry is vitiated for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 55 of the aforesaid rules for inflicting major punishments is misconceived. The teacher or even Head master of Junior High School is not a Government Servant and the C. C. A. Rules do not apply in this case. The teacher or even Head master of Junior High School is not a Government Servant and the C. C. A. Rules do not apply in this case. ( 12 ) FURTHER, after obtaining prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Committee of Management and an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Director of Education (Basic) vide impugned order dated 22. 2. 1992 from which it is apparent that all the objections raised by the petitioner were considered by the respondent No. 1 and the same were turned down by him by passing reasoned order. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the charges levelled against him. No interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .