Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3403 (ALL)

RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-10-30

A.P.SAHI, RANJANA PANDYA

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this case keeping in view the nature of the relief, which has been prayed for in the present appeal. 3. The appellant was a respondent in a Writ Petition filed by one Surendra Kumar Srivastava, a Class-III employee of an Intermediate College, who had been suspended by the appellant vide order dated 24.8.2015. The said suspension order was passed by the appellant which came to be challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but at the same time, while dismissing the writ petition, a direction has been issued that a Charge-sheet shall also be issued to the Principal - appellant herein and the District Inspector of Schools shall ensure that the appellant is placed under suspension and a departmental inquiry is held against him. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, submits that this direction coming against the appellant-respondent without there being any material to record such a conclusion, was a totally ex parte exercise by the Court and the same deserves to be set aside even though the writ petition has been dismissed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel also does not propose to file any counter-affidavit to this appeal at this stage. 6. It may be put on record that the proceedings against an employee of Class-IV cadre can be initiated by the appointing authority namely Principal of the Institution. It is in exercise of such powers that the appellant, who is the permanent Principal of the Institution, placed the respondent No. 4 under suspension which was challenged by the said employee in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. 7. So far as the Principal of an Institution is concerned, any disciplinary action against the Principal can be initiated by the Committee of Management as provided under the regulations contained in Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 7. So far as the Principal of an Institution is concerned, any disciplinary action against the Principal can be initiated by the Committee of Management as provided under the regulations contained in Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Management has admittedly not initiated any action against the Principal of the Institution and it is the Management alone which can place the Principal under suspension as provided for under Section 16-G (5) read with Sub Section (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act which requires the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. If the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the Principal, then the inquiry has to be conducted by the Management and any proposal to take penal action against a Teacher or a Principal has to have the approval of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board as per Section 21 of the 1982 Act. Thus, there is a complete mechanism provided even if any such action is proposed to be taken against the Principal or a Teacher. 8. What we find is that the learned Single Judge in the fresh writ petition at the admission stage itself, while dismissing the writ petition of a Class IV employee, issued directions for suspending the appellant and also to ensure departmental inquiry through the District Inspector of Schools which, in our opinion, amounts to by-passing the entire statutory provisions as indicated herein above that too even at an ex parte stage. Sri Khare, therefore, is right in his submission that such a direction could not have been issued in the light of what has been said above. 9. We, accordingly, modify the directions contained in the impugned dismissal order dated 1.10.2015 insofar as it is adverse to the appellant with a direction that it is open to the Committee of Management of the Institution or the District Inspector of Schools to initiate any such proceedings which may be permissible under law in the light of the aforesaid provisions. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off with the said observations.