C/M Opm Inter College And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4704 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8345 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- C/M Opm Inter College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankalp Narain,Srivats Narain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh as well as consequential order dated 16.04.2022 whereby the signatures of respondent no.3 has been attested by District Inspector of Schools as Officiating Principal of the Institution and with the further prayer to direct respondent-District Inspector of Schools to forthwith grant approval to the suspension of respondent no.3 in terms of Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The order dated 13.04.2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh whereby proposed suspension of respondent no.3 has been disapproved by the Inspector exercising his powers under Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has been challenged on the ground that the Inspector has completely transgressed his jurisdiction, inasmuch as, he has not only entered into merit of the charges levelled against the teacher, but has also returned findings on the charges which is clearly beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in him by law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon division bench judgments of this Court in Tej Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ESC 2301; Ram Kripal Katiyar Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2009 (7) ADJ 161 and a judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Shri Shivaji National Inter College Hansipur, Mirzapur and another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur and another, 1999 (1) ESC 121. With reference to the above judgments, it is contended that the Inspector is not supposed to enter into the merits of the charges and return finding as to whether charges are made out or not.

The Division Bench in Tej Narain Singh (supra) has been pleased to hold as under in paragraphs 13 to 16:-

"13. The question is as to whether pending departmental enquiry into the charges can the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising powers under Section 16-G(7), record conclusive findings qua the charges being established or not?.

14. We are of the considered opinion that the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising the power under Section 16-G(7), has only to examine on prima facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal.

15. District Inspector of Schools was therefore not justified in recording conclusive findings on the charges, as has been done in the facts of this case vide order dated 24-4-2008, to the effect that the charges have not been made out. Such a conclusion would adversely effect the departmental enquiry which has been initiated against the Principal of the institution.

16. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the last paragraph of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24-4-2008, in so far as it records that the charges have not been made out, is legally unsustainable and is hereby quashed."

Similarly in Ram Kripal Katiyar (supra), the Division Bench has observed as under in paragraph 5:-

"5. In the instant case it is admitted position that the District Inspector of Schools has given approval. The only grouse of the appellant is that opportunity of hearing ought to have been extended while considering the grant of approval. In support of this contention, Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any statutory provision wherein such opportunity was necessary. While considering the grant of approval the District Inspector of Schools is required to ensure that their exists some reasonable ground for proceeding against the head of institution or teacher and there exists necessary reason to place him under suspension. However, while considering the grant of approval he would not embark upon the merits of charges. In other words, he cannot hold a parallel inquiry as Regulation 39 does not require furnishing proof of charges. Under Regulation 39 the Committee of Management is required to forward together with the order of suspension, details of charges, certified copies of complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, etc. in order to find out as to whether charges are non-est or does not constitute misconduct. The Act and the Regulation nowhere envisages about providing opportunity of hearing at the stage of grant of approval by the District Inspector of Schools. However, the person aggrieved by such resolution of the Committee of Management can approach the District Inspector of Schools straightaway to show that the order of suspension is not justified or warranted in the facts of the case. In the case of Govind Swarup Pandey v. The Authorized Controller, Adarsh Inter College, Manikpur, Banda1, this Court has held that it is open to the person aggrieved to approach the District Inspector of Schools straightaway and to satisfy him that the order of suspension has been passed illegally or mala fide even undeservedly. No reason or explanation has come before us as to what prevented the appellant from approaching the District Inspector of Schools against the decision of the Committee of Management placing him under suspension. It is well settled legal position that the order of suspension is not a punishment and, therefore, while placing a delinquent employee under suspension, no notice to show cause or any opportunity of hearing is mandatory. The only requirement is that there must exist some prima facie misconduct on the part of the employee and for which regular departmental proceeding is under contemplation or is already initiated."

Similar view has been taken in the case of Committee of Management, Shri Shivaji National Inter College Hansipur, Mirzapur and another (supra).

In the facts of the present case, the Inspector has not examined the materials for the purposes of his prima facie satisfaction but has entered into the merits of the charges and returned a definite finding that allegation made against the respondent are not established. This is not the jurisdiction vested in the Inspector by virtue of Section 16-G(7) of the 1921 Act and has accordingly passed the consequential order attesting the signatures of respondent no.3 as Officiating Principal of the Institution.

This Court is of the considered opinion that the Inspector has lost sight of his own limitations in examining the matter with reference to Section 16-G(7) and has therefore completely transgressed his jurisdiction.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents could not dispute the settled position of law and submits that the authority may be permitted to revisit the issue. In view of the legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners which has not been disputed by learned Standing Counsel, no purpose would be solved in keeping the writ petition pending and thus, notices are not being issued to respondent no.3.

In that view of the matter, the order dated 13.04.2022 as well as consequential order dated 16.04.2022 cannot be sustained and are quashed. The District Inspector of Schools shall revisit the matter in light of the law, noticed above, after notice to the parties (including respondent no.3).

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the parties on merits. The required decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the Inspector alongwith a copy of this order on 16.06.2022 and a specific date shall be fixed for consideration.

The writ petition, accordingly, is allowed. No order is passed as to costs.

Order Date :- 31.5.2022

Rahul.