C/M Mohan Vidya Mandir Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 7330 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35524 of 2017
 
Petitioner:- C/M Mohan Vidya Mandir Inter College Govindnagar Kanpur
 
Respondent:- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner:- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C., Amit Saxena, Ashok Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Committee of Management of an Intermediate College has laid challenge to an order of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad1, the second respondent, dated 20th July, 2017, whereby it has returned the papers relating to dismissal of the Principal of the college in question, the fourth respondent, on the ground that the decision has not been taken by the Committee of Management of the institution but by the Society.

The essential facts are that the petitioner, a Committee of Management, runs and conducts the affairs of an Intermediate College, namely, Mohan Vidya Mandir Inter College, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar2, which receives financial aid from the State Government. The college is regulated under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 19213, the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 19714, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 19825 and the Rules framed thereunder.

The fourth respondent was selected by the Board as a Principal of the college and he joined as such in May, 2013. The dispute arose in May, 2016 when the District Inspector of Schools forwarded to the petitioner a complaint received by him from the office of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister against the fourth respondent. The said complaint was said to be made by the President of a public spirited society. From the record it appears that the basic complaint against the fourth respondent was that he is instrumental in collecting illegal money from the students.

Upon receiving the said complaint, the petitioner vide its communication dated 04th June, 2016 addressed to the fourth respondent called upon him to submit his explanation in respect of the allegations made against him by the complainant. A copy of the said communication is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition.

In response to the said show cause notice dated 04th June, 2016, the fourth respondent submitted a brief reply on 08th June, 2016 and denied the charges. Along with his reply, he submitted some documents in support of his explanation. The petitioner, after considering the explanation submitted by the fourth respondent, made some queries at its own level and found that some of the allegations in respect of collection of illegal money for tie, belt, transfer certificates, etc. are true. In the meantime, the petitioner further received complaint from the staff of the college also against the fourth respondent.

The Committee of Management considering these materials passed a resolution on 24th July, 2016 to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the fourth respondent and also resolved to suspend the fourth respondent in the meantime. The said resolution is on the record. Consequent thereupon, the fourth respondent was placed under suspension on 26th July, 2016 and a three-Member Committee pursuant to the aforementioned resolution was also constituted to conduct the enquiry.

A charge-sheet was issued to the fourth respondent and was sent to him on 01st August, 2016. In the charge-sheet, as many as 36 charges were levelled against him, some of which are of grave nature regarding financial misdemeanour and sexual harassment of lady staff and teachers. On 16th August, 2016 the fourth respondent submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. A copy of the reply is contained in annexure-12 to the writ petition.

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that after submitting the explanation/reply to the charge-sheet the fourth respondent did not cooperate in the enquiry as he failed to appear before Enquiry Committee in spite of several communications issued to him calling upon him to appear before it. It is stated that when the fourth respondent did not appear before the Enquiry Committee, it concluded the enquiry exparte and submitted its report on 18th September, 2016.

The Committee of Management of the College considered the report and resolved to terminate the services of the fourth respondent vide resolution dated 20th September, 2016. Accordingly, a termination order dated 23rd September, 2016 was issued to the fourth respondent.

After terminating the services of the fourth respondent, the Committee of Management informed the third respondent, the District Inspector of Schools, regarding completion of the enquiry and resolution of the Committee of Management for forwarding it to the Board, which is the competent authority, to consider the proposed termination order.

The office of the District Inspector of Schools vide a communication dated 07th October, 2016 forwarded all the papers to the second respondent, the Board, for approval of termination order of the fourth respondent.

On 22nd December, 2016 the third respondent directed the petitioner, with reference to the letter received by him from the Board dated 08th December, 2016, to submit certain documents specially resolution of the Committee of Management, by which the Enquiry Committee was constituted; copy of the charge-sheet and its service upon the delinquent officer; and some other documents relating to the disciplinary proceeding against the fourth respondent.

In response to the said communication, the Committee of Management, the petitioner, on 30th March, 2017 reminded the District Inspector of Schools that the original record of the disciplinary proceeding has already been submitted to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, who had forwarded it vide his communication dated 21st October, 2016 to the Board.

On 01st April, 2017 the District Inspector of Schools asked the petitioner to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Act, 1921 and the Act, 1982 as there were serious allegations of sexual harassment of the lady teachers against the fourth respondent.

The District Inspector of Schools vide his communication dated 01st May, 2017 informed the Committee of Management that the second respondent vide his communication dated 21st April, 2017 has returned the entire papers to him on the ground that the decision of dismissal of the fourth respondent has been taken by the Society, which has established the college, and not by the Committee of Management of the College.

In response to the said communication of the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management of the college on 09th May, 2017 has submitted a detailed explanation to the District Inspector of Schools wherein it has been categorically stated that due to the inadvertent mistake of Clerk of the College in the resolution taking action against the fourth respondent the words "Management Society" have been mentioned, whereas the said resolution has been passed by the Committee of Management of the College. In support of the said statement, a copy of the explanation submitted by the Clerk, who had drafted the resolution, was also enclosed. It has been emphatically stated by the Committee of Management in its reply that the decision to initiate the disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the Committee of Management of the college and not by the Society in its meeting dated 24th July, 2016 and later on the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 20th September, 2016 has resolved to dismiss the fourth respondent in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985. The Committee of Management then again sent all the papers along with its reply dated 09th May, 2017 (annexure-22 to the writ petition).

The Secretary of the Board, the second respondent, on 31st May, 2017 sent a communication to the District Inspector of Schools and required certain documents mentioned in the said communication such as copy of the resolution to constitute the Enquiry Committee, copy of the charge-sheet, reply submitted by the Principal, if any, copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Committee and the resolution dismissing the services of the fourth respondent, etc. The District Inspector of Schools, in compliance with the said letter, on 15th June, 2017 directed the petitioner, the Committee of Management, to submits those documents mentioned in the communication of the Board dated 31st May, 2017. The Committee of Management submitted all the documents as required in the communication of the Board, vide its letter dated 22nd June, 2017 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools. A copy of the said letter is on the record. The District Inspector of Schools forwarded the documents submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Board on 24th June, 2017.

By the impugned order dated 20th July, 2017 the Board has again returned the papers on the same ground that the decision has been taken by the Society and not by the Committee of Management of the College.

The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit and has brought on record the resolution dated 24th July, 2016, whereby it has resolved to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the fourth respondent and suspended him on the ground of allegations of lady teachers of sexual harassment. Vide the same resolution it appointed Smt. Rekha Srivastava as Officiating Principal of the College and constituted a three-Member Committee, wherein one Sri Hemraj Ji Chopra and two other Members were appointed as Enquiry Officers, and the said decisions were taken unanimously. The said meeting was said to be attended by the President, Vice-President, Manager, Deputy Manager and some of the Members of the College.

A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent stating therein that the College has been established by Mohan Vidya Mandir Society, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, which is a registered society. The office-bearers of the Society are elected under the bye-laws of the society and the office-bearers of the College are elected in terms of the scheme of administration, which manages the affairs of the College. It is mentioned in the short counter affidavit that "it appears that" the members and office bearers of the society, many of whom are also members and office-bearers of the Committee of Management of the college, were not satisfied with the fourth respondent and they initiated the disciplinary proceedings against him after obtaining some complaints from different sources and the society is purported to pass a resolution dated 24th July, 2016 to place the petitioner under suspension. On 24th July, 2016 the President of the Enquiry Committee was supplied photocopy of the resolution of the Committee of Management of the society. It is stated that the entire proceeding has been taken by the society against the fourth respondent and the same has again been submitted to the Board by deleting the word "society" and substituting the same by the word "Manager".

I have heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first and third respondents, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

The fourth respondent is a Principal of the college. It appears that some complaints were made against him by a society, which has been formed by the public spirited persons, to the office of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister. The said complaint has been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, who has sought comments from the Committee of Management of the college, the petitioner. The fourth respondent has not disputed that the petitioner is not a duly recognised Committee of Management. The office-bearers of the Committee of Management of the college, whose names are mentioned in the resolution dated 24th July, 2016, have not been disputed in the short counter affidavit, which has been filed subsequent to the said supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the said resolution indicates that one Sri Phool Chandra is the President of the Committee of Management and Smt. Garima Chaupra is Manager of the Committee of Management. The writ petition has been filed by the Manager of the college Smt. Garima Chaupra. She has claimed that she is Manager of the college. Hence, indisputably Smt. Garima Chaupra is duly recognised Manager of the Intermediate College. The college has its scheme of administration. It is a trite that in a recognised Intermediate College it is mandatory that college must have a scheme of administration in terms of Section 16-A of the Act, 1921. The affairs of the college are regulated by the scheme of administration. The procedure for the election of the Committee of Management, its Membership, the term of the Committee of Management and its office-bearers and other incidental matters are provided in the scheme of administration. After the election, the Regional Level Committee, while considering the recognition of the Committee of Management, is obliged to look into the papers submitted by the Committee of Management for its recognition to find out whether the procedure provided in the scheme of administration has been followed or not.

It is a common ground that the petitioner is functioning as a Committee of Management of the college. Upon receiving the complaint from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, a show cause notice dated 04th June, 2016 was issued by the Manager of the College Smt. Garima Chaupra to the fourth respondent. A copy of the said show cause notice is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The fourth respondent, who is Principal of the college, in his reply addressed to the petitioner, the Manager of the college, has offered his explanation. A careful perusal of his reply shows that he has not challenged the authority of Smt. Garima Chaupra, the Manager of the College/petitioner. Thus, he has accepted that she is Manager of the college. A copy of the resolution of the Committee of Management and copy of the charge-sheet also demonstrate that the decision to constitute the Enquiry Committee was taken by the Committee of Management and the charge-sheet has been issued by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the Committee of Management on 24th July, 2016 and by the same resolution the fourth respondent has also been placed under suspension.

A perusal of the charge-sheet dated 01st August, 2016 shows that it is signed by a three-Member Committee who have been appointed by the Committee of Management in its resolution dated 24th July, 2016. The petitioner has replied the said charge-sheet vide a detailed reply dated 16th August, 2016. In the said explanation he has not taken any ground that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated by the Society, which has no authority. From a perusal of the reply dated 16th August, 2016 submitted by the fourth respondent, it instantly comes out that the issue with regard to competence of the Committee of Management of the society has not been taken by the fourth respondent. In his reply there is not even a reference about any such illegality. It demonstrably establishes that the plea taken by the Board that the society has taken the decision, is not based on any material on the record.

It appears that the Board has gathered the said impression on the basis of the language used in the resolution, wherein the word "society" has been mentioned. When the Board in its letter dated 08th December, 2016 drawn the attention of the District Inspector of Schools to the said fact and asked him to submit the relevant papers, the District Inspector of Schools pursuant thereto sent a communication dated 22nd December, 2016 to the Committee of Management requiring it to submit some of the documents mentioned therein. In response thereto, the Committee of Management on 09th May, 2017 submitted a detailed reply, wherein it has explained that due to inadvertent mistake of the Clerk the word "society" has been mentioned in the resolution, which has been rectified. It has also been mentioned therein that the said resolution has been passed by the Committee of Management which is evident from the Members and office-bearers, who were present in the said meeting. It has been categorically stated that the said decision was taken by the Committee of Management of the college and not by the office-bearers of the society. Along with the said reply, again the papers have been submitted by the Committee of Management.

The Board, however, has passed a skeletal and cryptic order, which is bereft of any reason, returning the documents to the District Inspector of Schools without taking any decision on the resolution of the Committee of Management.

Chapter IV of the Act, 1982 deals with the appointment of the teachers. Section 21 of the Act, 1982 puts a restriction on the dismissal etc. of teachers without prior approval of the Board. Section 21 reads as under:

"21. Restriction on dismissal etc. of teachers.-- The Management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board dismiss any teacher or remove him from service or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period (whether temporarily or permanently) and any such thing done without prior approval shall be void."

The Board exercising its power under Sections 7 and 34 of the Act, 1982, with the prior approval of the State Government, has framed the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985. The said regulation deals with the procedure for approval of punishment of the teachers. Regulation 2(d) defines 'institution' and Regulation 2(e) defines the 'Management'. Regulation 2(e) reads as under:

"(e) "Management" in relation to an institution means the Committee of Management or person or authority vested with the power to manage and conduct the affairs of that Institution;"

The above definition shows that a person or authority vested with the power to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution is the Management. In the present case, the fourth respondent has never challenged the authority of the petitioner that it does not conduct the affairs of the institution. The petitioner asserts that it is a duly recognised Committee of Management. The names of the office-bearers who have attended the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 24th July, 2016 have not been disputed by the fourth respondent either in his reply submitted to the show cause notice and the charge-sheet or in the short counter affidavit. Hence, I find that the petitioner is a Committee of Management of the college at the present.

As regards the resolution, on the basis of which the Board reached the conclusion that it has been passed by the Society, which has established the college, I find that a detailed explanation has been submitted by the Committee of Management in its communication dated 09th May, 2017, which has not been adverted to by the Board. The decision of the Board is cryptic and bereft of reasons. Hence, on this ground alone the impugned order of the Board has to be set aside.

The law in respect of furnishing reason by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority is too well settled to reiterate. Suffice it to refer a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Ashoka v. University of Agricultural Science and others6 and the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India7, which has been followed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in unbroken line of decisions.

For all the reasons mentioned above, I find that the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20th July, 2017 is arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Board to decide the matter afresh after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

Learned counsel for the Board Sri A.K. Yadav submits that there are several vacancies of the Members and the Chairman of the Board. It is made clear that in case the Board finds that it is not properly constituted within the said period, it is open to it to move an appropriate application for extension of time.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Date :- 28 November, 2017

SKT/-