JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri S.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. Petitioner, Ram Singh, claims to have been appointed as C.T. Grade teacher on 26th December, 1988, in Antahpuri Inter College, Sabalpur, Kanpur Dehat (which is a recognised Intermediate College), on ad-hoc basis against a short-term vacancy, said to have been caused in the institution because of, leave without pay, having been sanctioned in favour of one Sri Awadh Bihari. Such appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, under his order dated 25th February, 1989. Upto that day, the institution was not on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. 3. On record is an order dated 22nd December, 1992, wherein the name of the petitioner was included in the list of teachers approved for payment of salary under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, as Assistant Teacher of the institution after the institution was taken on the grant-in-aid. 4. It has been stated that the salary of the petitioner was, however, was not released, resulting in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 being filed by him, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court dated 19th May, 1992, requiring the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation of the petitioner for payment of salary, by means of a reasoned speaking order and in case decision is taken in favour of petitioner, he may be paid salary. 5. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat, by means of the order dated 1st June, 1993, decided the representation of the petitioner and sanctioned the payment of salary for the period July, 1991 onwards. It has further been recorded in the order that the leave period of Sri Awadh Bihari was extended for 5 years, and the said period would expire on 14th February, 1989, therefore, a substantive vacancy in the institution would be caused on the said date. The Manager of the institution has therefore, been directed to take necessary steps for requisitioning the vacancy to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad. 6. Petitioner claims that he has been working since then and he has also been paid salary. The Manager of the institution has therefore, been directed to take necessary steps for requisitioning the vacancy to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad. 6. Petitioner claims that he has been working since then and he has also been paid salary. On completing ten years of service, he was granted L.T. Grade under the order dated 31st July, 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. In the meantime, one Phool Chandra Gupta was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and was appointed in the institution on 20th July, 2004, as Science Teacher. One Sri Ajeet Singh was similarly appointed in the month of October, 2005. 7. From the records, it appears that the Senior Auditor, Directorate of Education, U.P. Allahabad raised objection under his letter dated 28th February, 2005 with regard to the continuance of the petitioner, after appointment of Sri Phool Chandra Gupta. The Principal of the institution submitted a reply to the objection so raised. Correspondence took place between the officers and ultimately on 5th May, 2006 the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat issued an order requiring the Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat to stop the payment of salary to the petitioner as well as to issue appropriate orders against the officers responsible including the principal of the institution. 8. The Manager of the institution on 25th June, 2006 decided to take action in the matter on the basis of the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 5th May, 2006 and provided that the services of the petitioner are no more required. This order of the Manager of the institution dated 25th June, 2006 as well as consequential order dated 1st July, 2006 has been challenged, by means of the present writ petition. Petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as well as to pay salary regularly. 9. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petition on 5th September, 2006 required the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat to produce all the relevant records qua continuance of the petitioner subsequent to 1st July, 2003 (i.e. date of appointment of Phool Chand) and payment of salary thereof. They were also required to show-cause as to why unauthorised payment made, be not recovered from the officers personally. 10. They were also required to show-cause as to why unauthorised payment made, be not recovered from the officers personally. 10. The District Inspector of Schools has appeared before this Court on 16th October, 2006 and a statement was made on his behalf that prior to the year 1991 the institution was unaided and therefore, no records in respect of the alleged appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari as well as payment of salary to him or leave having been granted, are available. 11. Validity of the appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari, his having proceeded on leave without pay resulting in a vacancy in the institution where under short-term appointment of the petitioner is said to have been made, are basic facts, on which the claim of the petitioner qua his appointment in the institution on ad-hoc basis in the year 1988 and his continuous thereof, has to be examined. 12. The Court permitted the Manager of the institution as well as the District Inspector of Schools to produce all the relevant records in original qua appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari. 13. This Court may record that the original documents qua appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari, have not been produced either by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat or by the Committee of Management of the institution. 14. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 9th November, 2006. Various facts pertaining to the Management and Principal of the institution have been stated. It has been disputed that Sri Phool Chandra Gupta has been appointed in the institution on the post against which the petitioner was working. 15. The institution was originally granted recognition as a High School under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 prior to 1980. Any appointment in a recognised High School could be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulations framed thereunder and only with prior approval of the Education Authority concerned. 16. Therefore, unless the original documents in respect of appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari in the institution are examined and it is found that Sri Awadh Bihari infact was appointed in the institution after following the procedure prescribed under law, there could not have been a leave vacancy, as alleged by the petitioner because of Awadh Bihari having proceeded on leave as claimed. 17. 17. This Court may further record that unless the Committee of Management or the petitioner produces such documents to establish that Sri Awadh Bihari was working against a post, after being appointed under the statutory provisions applicable, there cannot be a vacancy because of leave having been granted in favour of Sri Awadh Bihari or for appointment of the petitioner against said leave vacancy. This Court may further record that since the original documents pertaining to the appointment of Sri Awadh Bihari are not being produced, an adverse inference has to be drawn. A fraud appears to have been played for suggesting the leave to Awadh Bihari, and appointment being offered against such imaginary vacancy to the petitioner with the approval being obtained from the District Inspector of Schools. 18. After the institution was taken in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, petitioner has been paid salary through public exchequer. Such acts necessarily amount to defrauding the public exchequer and therefore, civil and criminal liabilities arise. The practice has to be brought to an end with all firmness. However, no final opinion is being expressed, inasmuch as the matter needs to be enquired in detail by the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government Lucknow. 19. Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government Lucknow to summon all the records of the institution from the date the institution has been granted recognition and to examine as to whether Awadh Bihari was ever appointed in the institution in accordance with law or not. The original papers in that regard must be looked into and finding recorded after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management, petitioner and any other aggrieved persons. In case, it is found that Awadh Bihari was never appointed in the institution and was never working, it would logically follow that the Committee of Management of the institution, which has appointed the petitioner, the petitioner himself and the District Inspector of Schools, who had granted approval under letter dated 25th February, 1989 as well as District Inspector of Schools, who had passed the order dated 22nd December, 1992 and dated 1st June, 1993 have all colluded among themselves for defrauding the public exchequer. The Secretary shall direct investigation of crime by lodging First Information Report against all responsible and shall initiate civil proceeding for recovery of the loss caused to the State Government. The loss caused must be recovered in a time bound manner. The Secretary must finalise the matter within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 20. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to forward a certified copy of this order to the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government Lucknow within two weeks from today. This Court may record that in no case persons responsible for such fraudulent acts may be permitted to go unpunished and no leniency be shown in the matter. ————