JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management, Manokaran Junior High School, Reti, Shahjahanpur, through its Manager Sri P.D. Tiwari has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 20.1.2014 passed by the Senior Finance & Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Shahjahanpur, directing single operation of the salary account of the Institution. 2. The facts in brief are that there is a registered society namely, Manokaran Junior High School, Reti, Shahjahanpur. It runs a Junior High School in the same name. The said Institution is receiving grant in aid from the State Government and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as ‘’the Act’), is applicable. The management of the society and the Institution is in the hands of its Executive Committee, whereunder, the Manager is empowered to supervise and manage the School. The term of the office bearers is three years and they are entitled to hold the post until next committee is constituted. Last elections of the Executive Committee were held on 24.7.2011, in which Sri Raja Ram Mishra was elected as President and Sri P.D. Tiwari as Manager. It is not in dispute that the salary account was being operated jointly by the Manager Sri P.D. Tiwari and respondent No. 4 The dispute arose when Sri P.D. Tiwari, after handing over charge of his office to Dy. Manager Sri Nandram Ram Tripathi went for his treatment. After he returned and assumed charge of his office as Manager on 28.9.2013, Sri Chhote Singh (impleaded as respondent in pursuance of order dated 10.3.2014) started claiming himself to be the Manager. The dispute between him and Sri P.D. Tiwari resulted in passing of the impugned order by respondent No. 4. 3. The parties have exchanged the affidavits and with their consent, this writ petition was heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4 is without jurisdiction, in as much as the power under Section 5 can only be exercised by District Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3 herein). 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4 is without jurisdiction, in as much as the power under Section 5 can only be exercised by District Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3 herein). On the other hand learned Standing Counsel, Sri Santosh Kumar and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that respondent No. 4 has been authorized by the State Government to exercise such power by Government order dated 7.8.1986. 5. Section 5(1) of the Act provides, inter alia, as under : Procedure for payment of salary in the case of certain institutions :—(1) The management of every institution shall for the purposes of disbursement of salaries to its teachers and employees open in a Scheduled Bank or a Co-operative Bank, a separate account to be operated jointly by a representative of the Management and by the Education Officer or such other officer as may be authorized by the Education Officer in that behalf: Provided that after the account is opened, the Education Officer may, if he is, subject to any rule made under this Act, satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, instruct the Bank that the account shall be operated by the representative of the management alone, and may at any time revoke such instruction: Provided further, that in the case referred to in the proviso to sub-section (2), or where a difficulty arises in the disbursement of salaries due to any default of the management, the Education Officer may instruct the bank that the account shall be operated only by himself or by such officer as may be authorized by him in that behalf and may at any time revoke such instruction.” 6. Thus, order for single operation of account can be issued to the bank on the instruction of “Education officer”, who is defined under Section 2 (b) as under : “Education Officer” means the District Basic Education Officer appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and in relation to a girls’ institution, the District Basic Education Officer (Women), and in each case includes any other officer authorized by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of the Education Officer under this Act; 7. Thus, “Education Officer” is not only District Basic Education Officer, but it also includes any other officer authorized by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of the Education Officer under this Act. 8. Government order dated 7.8.1986 issued by the State Government authorizes Accounts Officer to exercise certain powers of the district Basic Education Officer. Relevant part of the Government Order is to the following effect : ÞizLrj 2—————————— vc ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS izR;sd csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa izns'k foRr ,oa ys[kk lsok ds ys[kkf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dj mldk izLrj 1 esa mfYyf[kr leLr laLFkkvksa ds f'k{k.k o f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa ds osrukfn ds vkgj.k o forj.k o vU; mifyf[kr leLr dk;Z dk nkf;Ro lkSaik tk;sxkA ;g vf/kdkjh csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds i;Zos{kh; fu;U=.k esa dk;Z djsxkA —————————— izLrj 3- futh {ks= ds lgk;rk izkIr v'kkldh; twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy ds vuqnkuks dks vkgfjr djus] “kqYd vk; dks tek djus vkSj v/;kidksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa dks osru forjd vkfn dk;ksZa ds lEcU/k esa tks nkf;Ro bl le; csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds gSa os lc vc ubZ O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr ys[kk vf/kdkjh ds gksaxsAÞ 9. Thus, by the aforesaid G.O., the State Government authorized the Accounts Officer to perform certain duties, which before creation of post of Accounts Officer, were being done by the District Basic Education Officer. This includes the power to act as drawing and disbursing authority for teachers and employees of the aided private junior high schools. The power to disburse salary by single operation of account, is part and parcel of the power to act as disbursing authority for the teachers and employees of the aided private junior high schools. This includes the power to act as drawing and disbursing authority for teachers and employees of the aided private junior high schools. The power to disburse salary by single operation of account, is part and parcel of the power to act as disbursing authority for the teachers and employees of the aided private junior high schools. This is further exemplified from the subsequent G.O. dated 7.2.2013 prescribing the procedure for disbursement of salary by E-payment, wherein, the power of Accounts Officer under the G.O. dated 7.8.1986 have been explained thus : **mRrj izns'k twfu;j gkbZLdwy ¼v/;kid ,oa deZpkfj;ksa½ ds osru dk Hkqxrku vfèkfu;e&1978 ds dze esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k la[;k&6180@15&5&196@86 fnukad 7-8-1986 ds izLrj&2 esa of.kZr O;oLFkk ftlds }kjk fo|ky; ds dkfeZdksa ds osru gsrq [kksys x;s la;qDr [kkrs ls lEcfU/kr ys[kksa o vfHkys[kksa ij f'k{kk foHkkx dh vksj ls gLrk{kj djus dk vf/kdkj foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh dks fn;k x;k Fkk lkFk gh foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh csfld f'k{kk dks xzkUV ds vkgj.k ,oa forj.k dk vf/kdkj Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA blh dze esa fuxZr foKfIr la[;k 6@82@15&5&196@86 fnukad 8-8-1986 esa foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh dks f'k{kkf/kdkjh ds vf/kdkj fn;s x;s gSA** It is clear that respondent No. 4 is duly authorized by the State Government to exercise the power of Education Officer under Section 5 of the Act. Accordingly, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 10. Second contention is that the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice. The stand taken by the petitioner has not been considered at all. There was no default on part of the management which may have created difficulty in disbursement of the salary and thus, the impugned order is a result of colourable exercise of power. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was bona fide dispute regarding the person entitled to act as manager and such dispute was pending before the Assistant Registrar. Consequently, respondent No. 4 had rightly directed disbursement of the salary by single operation of accounts. 12. It transpires from the record that the respondent No. 4 in its letter dated 11.11.2013 to respondent No. 3 mentioned about the controversy between the parties and sought clarification from him regarding the person to be treated as manager for the purpose of the Act. 12. It transpires from the record that the respondent No. 4 in its letter dated 11.11.2013 to respondent No. 3 mentioned about the controversy between the parties and sought clarification from him regarding the person to be treated as manager for the purpose of the Act. Copy of said letter was also duly forwarded to the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner vide his letter dated 13.11.2013 clarified the stand as to how he is entitled to operate the accounts of the Institution. Though formal show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner, but it transpires from the record that the petitioner was alive to the controversy and had submitted his explanation before respondent No. 4. It is now well-settled that the principles of natural justice are not straight jacket formula. Since, in the instant case, petitioner was aware of the controversy and had submitted his explanation, therefore, mere non-issuance of the show-cause notice will not vitiate the impugned order. However, the other ingredient of the principle of natural justice is that the explanation submitted should be taken into consideration. Thus, it has to be seen whether such aspect has been complied with or not. It is further to be considered whether in the facts of the present case, there was any default on part of the management, to warrant passing of the impugned order. 13. The petitioner in his reply dated 13.11.2013 stated that he is duly recognized manager of the Committee. He had to go out for his treatment, therefore he handed over charge to Dy. Manager Sri Nandram Tripathi as contemplated under the bye-laws of the society. It is admitted in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 that Sri P.D. Tiwari vide letter dated 15.9.2013 duly intimated the authorities in this regard. It is further admitted that on the basis of said letter, signatures of Sri Nandram Tripathi were attested as manager to act in absence of the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner after treatment resumed charge of managership on 28.9.2013. 14. However, it transpires from the record that the president vide letter dated 30.9.2013 informed the authorities that handing over charge of managership by Sri P.D. Tiwari to Sri Nandram Tripathi was illegal, as Sri Nandram Tripathi had resigned long back in the year 2007. It is also admitted that the petitioner after treatment resumed charge of managership on 28.9.2013. 14. However, it transpires from the record that the president vide letter dated 30.9.2013 informed the authorities that handing over charge of managership by Sri P.D. Tiwari to Sri Nandram Tripathi was illegal, as Sri Nandram Tripathi had resigned long back in the year 2007. It is further stated that consequently, Committee of Management in its meeting dated 29.9.2013 authorised Sri Chhote Singh to discharge duties as manager and thus, his signatures should be attested. 15. It is admitted in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 that the salary till September, 2013 was duly disbursed by joint operation of the salary account. Sri P.D. Tiwari recovered from illness and resumed charge of managership on 28.9.2013. His case is that thereafter he requested the Headmaster to place before him the salary bills for his counter signature. However, Headmaster of the Institution did not comply with the said direction as he was acting under extraneous considerations. Sri P.D. Tiwari himself forwarded the salary bill to the accounts officer so that there is no delay in disbursement of the salary. Specific plea in this regard was taken by Sri P.D. Tiwari in his explanation dated 13.11.2013 given to respondent No. 4. 16. On the other hand, Sri Chhote Singh, who claims to have been authorised by the Committee to work as manager, in its meeting held on 29.9.2013, after Sri P.D. Tiwari resumed charge of his office as manager on 28.9.2013, also submitted salary bills under his signatures. He further claims that Sri P.D. Tiwari was removed in the meeting dated 15.11.2013 and he is thus, the only person entitled to act as manager. The president alongwith Sri Chhote Singh have raised dispute in this regard before the Assistant Registrar, which is pending. Confronted with the said situation, respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure 5) sought clarification from respondent No. 3 about the person entitled to act as manager. The respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure 6) informed respondent No. 4 that Sri P.D. Tiwari is duly recognized manager. However, it seems that the respondent No. 4 was not satisfied with the clarification given by respondent No. 3. He again wrote letter dated 11.11.2013 to respondent No. 3 seeking further clarifications. The respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure 6) informed respondent No. 4 that Sri P.D. Tiwari is duly recognized manager. However, it seems that the respondent No. 4 was not satisfied with the clarification given by respondent No. 3. He again wrote letter dated 11.11.2013 to respondent No. 3 seeking further clarifications. The Basic Education Officer again vide its letter dated 15.1.2014 (Annexure CA-6 to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 5) informed respondent No. 4 that the petitioner is duly recognized manager and Sri Chhote Singh described as ‘new manager’ in the said letter has not produced any cogent evidence relating to his recognition as manager. Thus, the position is self-explanatory. It was further stated that the dispute regarding managership is pending before the Assistant Registrar, thus, it would not be appropriate to decide it at his level. 17. Respondent No. 4 thereafter passed the impugned order for single operation of the accounts. It is stated that at present the committee of management is disputed and the dispute is pending before the Assistant Registrar, therefore, the salary will be disbursed by single operation of the accounts by him. This will be in the interest of public and the education. The order has been made subject to the decision of the Assistant Registrar, before whom the dispute is pending. 18. In the entire order, there is no finding that there was default on part of the management on account of which there was difficulty in disbursement of salary. Existence of such situation is necessary for invoking the power under the second proviso to Section 5. In the absence of such finding, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. Mere pendency of the dispute before the Assistant Registrar does not invest respondent No. 4 with the power to direct single operation of accounts, especially when it is not disputed that Sri P.D. Tiwari, duly elected manager, was operating the accounts. While passing the impugned order, it has been ignored that the salary till September, 2013 was paid by joint operation of accounts (admitted in para 3 of supplementary counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 and 4) and the petitioner resumed his office on 28.9.2013 itself and again submitted salary bills under his signatures. While passing the impugned order, it has been ignored that the salary till September, 2013 was paid by joint operation of accounts (admitted in para 3 of supplementary counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3 and 4) and the petitioner resumed his office on 28.9.2013 itself and again submitted salary bills under his signatures. The alleged resolution of the Committee dated 29.9.2013 authorising Chhote Singh to act as manager after the petitioner had resumed his office on 28.9.2013 and the subsequent resolution dated 15.11.2013 by which Sri P.D. Tiwari was allegedly removed, have not been recognised till date by any authority. Mere pendency of the dispute raised by president and Chhote Singh before the Assistant Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, were not germane for exercise of power under second proviso to Section 5. In this regard, the opinion given by respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 15.1.2014 was wholly justified, which was wrongly brushed aside by respondent No. 4. The explanation of the petitioner in his letter dated 13.11.2013, was totally ignored from consideration. For the aforesaid reasons as well, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 20. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 emphatically contended that there was management dispute and as such the impugned order is wholly justified. He placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Panchayat Raj Inter College, Bada Gaon Shahjahanpur and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 1031 and Committee of Management, Shri Girja Shankar Tiwari Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (11) ADJ 592 . 21. Indisputably, last elections were held on 24.7.2011, in which Sri P.D. Tiwari was elected as Manager. He was duly functioning as such until he handed over charge of his office to Sri Nand Ram Tripathi as he had to go for medical treatment. He resumed the office on 28.9.2013 and again sent salary bills under his signatures. His alleged removal on 29.9.2013 and 15.11.2013 has not been recognised by any authority so far. In the aforesaid background, if the dispute of the nature raised by Chhote Singh is held to be sufficient for passing the impugned order, it will lead to consequences not contemplated by the Act. His alleged removal on 29.9.2013 and 15.11.2013 has not been recognised by any authority so far. In the aforesaid background, if the dispute of the nature raised by Chhote Singh is held to be sufficient for passing the impugned order, it will lead to consequences not contemplated by the Act. A person may raise totally sham dispute and thereby succeed in getting the order of single operation passed. It is for the said reason that second proviso to Section 5 contemplates exercise of such power only when difficulty arise in payment of salary on account of default on part of the management, and not merely because the management dispute is pending. It is not the case of respondent No. 4 that salary could not be disbursed as salary bills have not been sent to him or there was default on part of management, resulting in difficulty in disbursement of the salary. The managerial dispute in the instant case was not such, which had led to any default on part of management, warranting passing of the impugned order. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 23. The next question that arises is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to, in view of the fact that fresh elections were due on 24.7.2014. The institution is a Junior High School and there is no legal embargo that after expiry of the term, the management cannot function, as in case of Intermediate institutions governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. On the other hand, bye-law No. 4 invests power in the Executive Committee to hold office until next committee is constituted. In view of the above, present committee with Sri P. D. Tiwari as its Manager, is entitled to operate the accounts of the Institution until new committee is elected. It is ordered accordingly. However, in case dispute pending before the Assistant Registrar goes against Sri P.D. Tiwari, it shall be open to the authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 24. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/directions contained above. —————