Allahabad High Court
C/M Sri Siddheshwar Nath Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7910 of 2021
Petitioner :- C/M Sri Siddheshwar Nath Inter College And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Nigam,Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha who appears on caveat on behalf of the fourth respondent.
Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this petition stand concluded in favour of the petitioner in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. And 4 Others [Writ-A No. 6390 of 2021, decided on 14 July 2021].
That petition came to be allowed by the Court in the following terms:
"Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate in support of the petitioner, Sri Anand Kumar Pandey as well as Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner, the officiating Principal of the institution assails the order of 06 March 2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. The DIOS in terms of the impugned order, referring to a report with respect to an allegation that the date of birth of the petitioner had been wrongly mentioned, has come to pass an order requiring the removal of the petitioner as officiating Principal. The issue of seniority between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is not in dispute since admittedly it came to be settled by an order of 18 September 2016. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as officiating Principal on that date itself. It becomes pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner as officiating Principal was challenged by the fourth respondent by means of Writ Petition No.9428 of 2019 which came to be dismissed.
The dispute itself arises in the backdrop of an FIR stated to have been registered on 03 June 2018 on the allegation that the petitioner, as per the disclosures made by him, appears to have taken the High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. as well as the Bihar Board simultaneously and in the same year. The allegation essentially is that at least one of those certificates is forged. It is also not in dispute that upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in that case. That charge sheet forms subject matter of challenge in Application under Section 482 No.7293 of 2019 pending in this Court and in which further proceedings have been stayed.
The principal question which therefore arises is whether in the aforesaid factual backdrop and as things stood thus whether the DIOS could have passed the order removing the petitioner as officiating Principal.
Before this Court, it is fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel that in case it be found that the petitioner has committed misconduct by submitting a forged marksheet, the statute vests sufficient power on the respondents to draw disciplinary proceedings as also to invoke the power of suspension pending those proceedings. The respondents having chosen not to follow the rule, cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory procedure which stands engrafted in the statute for trial of cases of misconduct by passing the order impugned and directing that the petitioner would no longer function as officiating Principal.
The Court also bears in mind that till date, the initial appointment of the petitioner has neither been questioned nor set aside by any competent authority. Viewed in that context it is manifest that the entire action of the respondents is based solely upon an internal enquiry and an opinion formed without following the due process as mandated under the relevant statutory rules.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Kushwaha appearing for the fourth respondent, in light of the aforesaid conclusions which were expressed by the Court, submitted that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remanded to the DIOS for consideration afresh rather than this petition being kept pending on the board of this Court.
In view thereof and for the reasons aforenoted, the instant petition, with consent, is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24 February 2021, 06 March 2021, 29 April 2021, 29 May 2021 and 04 June 2021 are quashed and set aside. The Court leaves it open to the DIOS to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. "
Following the reasons assigned and recorded in that judgment, this writ petition with consent also stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 24 February 2021, 29 May 2021 and 04 June 2021 shall stand quashed. Liberty shall stand reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with law and bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 20.7.2021
faraz
