Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2281 (ALL)

NIRMAL SAXENA v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-11-17

RAN VIJAI SINGH, V.M.SAHAI

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Short question that arises for consideration in this intra Court Appeal is whether the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is required to pass a reasoned order approving or disapproving the suspension order. 2. The petitioner is Principal of Lala Bulaki Das Baburam Sahai Hindu Mahila Inter College, Tilhar Shahjahanpur. The petitioner was suspended by the Committee of Management on 1.8.2008. This suspension order was disapproved on 15.9.2008 by the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter the Committee of Management (on additional charges) again suspended the petitioner on 29.9.2008. This suspension order has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 20.10.2008. This order was challenged by the petitioner before learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition on 11.11.2008 holding that the reasons were not required to be recorded by the District Inspector of Schools. (sic) Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 do not require to assign any reason. It is this order of learned Single Judge which has been challenged by the appellant before us in this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.K. Gupta assisted by Shri M.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have made statement before us that no factual dispute is involved in the case and only question of law is to be decided, therefore, we have taken this special appeal for final disposal without calling any counter affidavit. 5. The question as to whether the District Inspector of Schools is required to pass a reasoned order while granting approval or disapproval to the suspension order under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is no longer res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura, Distt. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College, Sakarpura, Distt. Vallia v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226(1), has held as under : “As discussed earlier, a District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G acts in a supervisory capacity, and his decision may have adverse effect on either party which is before him. Since the party affected adversely by his order invariably comes to Court, he must record brief reasons for according or refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension passed by a Committee of Management although a detailed judgment is not required. In the present case, the District Inspector of Schools has disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management without giving any reason whatsoever. In absence of any reason, this Court is unable to find fault with the resolution of the Committee of Management suspending the respondent No. 2. Therefore the order of the District Inspector of Schools must be held to be illegal and arbitrary.” It has been held by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tejnarain Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2301 (DB), as under : "We are of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising the power under Section 16-G (7), has only to examine on prima facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal.” 6. In view of the Division Bench decisions of this Court supra, we are of the considered opinion that recording of reasons while approving or disapproving the suspension order is sine-qua-non and if no reasons are recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, the order would be vitiated and cannot be upheld. 7. In the result, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2008 as well as order dated 20.10.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) are set-aside. 8. 7. In the result, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2008 as well as order dated 20.10.2008 passed by District Inspector of Schools (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) are set-aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties shall bear their own cost. ————