Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1459 (ALL)

SATYA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-05-23

TARUN AGARWALA

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.D. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management, respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the remaining respondents. Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the matter is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner is functioning as the Principal of the Sherwani Inter College, Neoli, District Etah and was suspended by an order dated 4.2.2006 on a variety of charges, some of which relates to financial irregularities. The District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 16.2.2006 issued a notice to the Committee of Management requesting them to submit the requisite papers relating to the suspension of the petitioner. It transpires, that upon hearing the parties, the District Inspector of Schools on 21.2.2006, recorded the submissions of the Committee of Management, namely, that the suspension order would be treated as a charge-sheet and that other papers in support of the charge-sheet would be supplied at a subsequent stage. 3. From a bare perusal of the short counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management, it has come on record, that the Committee of Management had supplied the requisite information as contemplated under Regulation 39 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’). The District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 1.4.2006 approved the suspension order in exercise of his powers under Section 16-G(7) of the Act. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of approval, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the said order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was liable to be quashed on the ground that the order of approval was passed without any application of mind and that no reasons had been recorded, while approving the suspension order. Further, the Inspector was required to give a bare minimum opportunity of hearing, before approving or disapproving the order of suspension. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was given and, therefore, the order of approval was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Further, the Inspector was required to give a bare minimum opportunity of hearing, before approving or disapproving the order of suspension. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was given and, therefore, the order of approval was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Sri S.C. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management submitted that the order of suspension was required to be approved under clause (7) of Section 16-G of the Act, and that from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 16-G of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given nor any reasons were required to be recorded while approving the suspension order. The learned Counsel further submitted that the reasons are only required to be given only when the authority disapproves the suspension order under clause (8) of Section 16-G of the Act. Consequently, there was no error in the impugned order issued by the District Inspector of Schools. 6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it becomes necessary to consider the provisions of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which reads as under : “16-G (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the management, unless in the opinion of the management— (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (6) Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commencement, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspension in any other case, and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and be accompanied by all relevant documents. (7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. (8) If, at any time, the Inspector is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against the Head of Institution or teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the Head of Institution or the teacher, the Inspector may, after affording opportunity to the management to make representation revoke an order of suspension passed under this section.” 7. The power to suspend the Principal or a teacher of an institution is governed under sub-clause (5) of Section 16-G of the Act which gives a power to the Committee of Management to suspend a teacher or a head of the institution, pending contemplation of an inquiry. Under sub clause (6), the suspension order and other papers and particulars as prescribed has to be forwarded to the Inspector concerned. The relevant papers which are required to be forwarded has been prescribed under Regulation 39 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. Under clause (7), the suspension order is required to be approved or disapproved by the Inspector within 60 days and under sub-clause (8), the suspension order could be revoked at any stage of the disciplinary proceedings where it is found that the disciplinary proceedings are being delayed for one reason or the other. 8. The question is, whether the Inspector is required to record reasons while approving or disapproving the suspension order under clause (7) of Section 16-G of the Act. In Committee of Management, Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura, District Ballia v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that the order of the District Inspector of Schools while approving or disapproving the resolution of the Committee of Management with regard to the suspension of the Principal or a teacher must contain the reasons and, in the absence of any reasons contained in the order of the Inspector, the same could not be sustained in law. 9. 9. In Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Mau Aima, Allahabad and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, 2000(4) ESC 2921, it was held that the statutory provisions of Section 16-G(7) provided that the order of approval had to be passed in writing, which made it implicit that the Inspector had to apply his mind and record reasons for approval or disapproval of the suspension order. The learned Single Judge further held that the Inspector was under a legal duty to pass a reasoned order under clause (7) of Section 16-G(7) of the Act. 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the management placed reliance upon a decision in Om Prakash Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and others, 2002(3) ESC 137 (All), on the proposition that no reason was required to be given while according approval. In the opinion of the Court, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the consistent view given in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear, that the Inspector, while according approval or disapproval of the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management, was required to give reasons and was also required to apply his mind. 12. Under clause (5) of Section 16-G, the Committee of Management could suspend a teacher or a Head of the Institution on certain grounds mentioned therein. The order was forwarded under clause (6) along with the papers prescribed under Regulation 39 of Chapter-Ill. These papers were required to be considered and the Inspector was required to apply his mind and was required to give the reasons while according approval or disapproval of the suspension order. In the present case, no reasons have been recorded and, therefore it is clear, that the Inspector did not apply his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case. There is another aspect of the matter. The Committee of Management while issuing the suspension order is not required to given an opportunity of hearing to the teacher or the head of the institution. There is another aspect of the matter. The Committee of Management while issuing the suspension order is not required to given an opportunity of hearing to the teacher or the head of the institution. Therefore, at the stage when the order of suspension is being approved and the Inspector is required to apply his mind, it is at that stage, a bare minimum opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the suspended teacher or the Principal, as the case may be. This is the bare minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice, which is required to be given at that time, by the Inspector, while approving or disapproving the suspension order. This is on account of the fact, that the papers forwarded by the Committee of Management under Regulation 39 of Chapter III may contain the reasons, which are only one sided. The other side of the coin should also be considered and that is when the suspended teacher or the Principal would come into the picture. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court, the Inspector is also required to give an opportunity of hearing and hear the version of the suspended teacher or the Principal before approving or disapproving the order of suspension. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Since no reasons were contained in the order, nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, the matter is remitted back to the Inspector, who will reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order under clause (7) of Section 16-G of the Act, either approving or disapproving the suspension order after giving an opportunity of hearing. The Inspector is required to give reasons for the approval or the disapproval of the suspension order within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Till the date of the decision, the petitioner will remain under suspension. Petition Allowed. ————