Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1770 (ALL)

Harjindar Nagar Inter College v. State of U. P.

2016-05-09

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner which is the Committee of Management of a recognised institution Harijinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar and its Manager have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of an order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the second respondent in purported exercise of power under Section 6(3) of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. An Authorised Controller has been appointed in the institution for a period of six months. The appointment of the Authorised Controller has been made on account of non-compliance of the notice issued by the District Inspector of Schools on 25.2.2016, whereby the petitioner Committee was required to pay the arrears of salary to the fourth respondent, Sri Inder Singh Gandhi, the Principal of the Institution. 2. The background facts in brief are that the fourth respondent was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the petitioners. Ultimately, by orders dated 25.8.2013 and 5.9.2013 his services were terminated. The aforesaid order were subject matter of challenge by the fourth respondent in Writ Petition No. 50433 of 2013. The writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 4.9.2015 primarily on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were held in violation of the principles of natural justice. The management was granted liberty to provide opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent in conducting fresh enquiry. The order of the Writ-Court dated 4.9.2015 was subjected to challenge in Special Appeal No. 674 of 2015, but without any success. The petitioner Committee thereafter again placed the fourth respondent under suspension by order dated 13.10.2015. The District Inspector of Schools on 19.2.2016 refused to accord approval to the said order and directed the management to reinstate the fourth respondent on the post of Principal. In the meantime, the petitioner Committee concluded the enquiry proceedings and dispensed with the services of the fourth respondent by order dated 22.2.2016, in pursuance of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21.2.2016. In the meantime, the petitioner Committee concluded the enquiry proceedings and dispensed with the services of the fourth respondent by order dated 22.2.2016, in pursuance of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21.2.2016. However, the Joint Director of Education ignoring the fact that the service of the fourth respondent came to be terminated on 22.2.2016 issued a notice dated 25.2.2016 to ensure compliance of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19.2.2016 failing which action would be taken against the petitioner Committee under the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 9803 of 2016 before this Court. In the said writ petition, it was contended that the service of the fourth respondent having been terminated on 22.2.2016, there cannot be any question of complying with the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 19.2.2016. 3. In the said writ petition, the fourth respondent was represented by his counsel. It was admitted on his behalf that since the institution is a minority institution and therefore, the termination order did not require any approval and consequently it became effective on the date it was passed. In view of these undisputed facts, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Joint Director of Education to have regard to these facts and to also examine whether mere termination of the service of the fourth respondent would absolve the petitioners of their liability to pay salary during the period the fourth respondent was under suspension. 4. It seems that thereafter, the management as well as the fourth respondent represented before the Joint Director of Education followed by passing of the impugned order dated 22.4.2016. 5. On 27.4.2016, after hearing of learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed : - "The impugned order appointing Authorised Controller dated 22.4.2016 passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur is being challenged before this Court on the ground that the Principal (fourth respondent), who was required to be reinstated, had since been dismissed from service. It is urged that the only dispute that remains is regarding payment of salary of the fourth respondent from the date of his reinstatement (5.9.2013) until his services were terminated by order dated 22.2.2016. It is urged that the only dispute that remains is regarding payment of salary of the fourth respondent from the date of his reinstatement (5.9.2013) until his services were terminated by order dated 22.2.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner committee had given in writing to the Joint Director of Education that it is ready to pay the salary of the fourth respondent for the said period in case the department so directs. It is urged that without considering the said explanation of the petitioners, the impugned order has been passed and thus, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the basis of passing the impugned order is notice dated 25.2.2016 which required the petitioners to permit the fourth respondent to join on the post of Principal, although by that time his service had been terminated. It is thus sought to be submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has given an undertaking before this Court that the petitioners are still ready to forward the salary bills of the fourth respondent in relation to his arrears for the period referred to above within a week. Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted that the fourth respondent is only concerned with payment of his salary. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, put up the instant matter as a fresh case on 9.5.2016, by which date, the petitioners shall comply with the undertaking given before this Court. Having regard to the undertaking given before this Court and the facts of the case, the operation of the impugned order dated 22.4.2016 shall remain stayed until the next date. It is clarified that in case the salary bill is submitted by the petitioners, the concerned respondent shall issue a receipt evidencing submission of the salary bill by the petitioners." 6. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein it is categorically stated that the salary bill of the fourth respondent for the remaining period i.e. from the date of suspension until services were terminated had been submitted before the District Inspector of Schools on 3.5.2016. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein it is categorically stated that the salary bill of the fourth respondent for the remaining period i.e. from the date of suspension until services were terminated had been submitted before the District Inspector of Schools on 3.5.2016. The District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 5.5.2016 required the petitioners to submit the bills in triplicate and to provide certified copy of the service book of the fourth respondent as well as the order of this Court. In compliance of these directions, the petitioners claim to have submitted the salary bills in triplicate, the service book of the fourth respondent and the certified copy of the order passed in the writ petition before the District Inspector of Schools on 7.5.2016. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Authorised Controller has been appointed by the impugned order solely on the ground that the petitioner Committee had failed to forward the salary bill of the fourth respondent relating to arrears of his salary and since the petitioner Committee has now submitted the salary bills, therefore, there is no justification in permitting continuance of the Authorised Controller. 8. Learned standing counsel and Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent do not dispute that in case the alleged default on part of the management has been cured and the salary bill has been duly submitted, there does not exist any other ground which may warrant continuance of the Authorised Controller. However, Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent submitted that the District Inspector of Schools is required to take necessary action on the basis of salary bills submitted by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly and in view of submissions made, the impugned order cannot be permitted to continue any further. It is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed by providing that it shall now be open to the District Inspector of Schools to act on the basis of salary bills submitted before him by the management. It is clarified that this order will not preclude the District Inspector of Schools or the Joint Director of Education to take action against the management in future, in case any fresh ground comes into existence.