Allahabad High Court

Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 August, 2023

Bench: Vikas Budhwar





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171431
 
Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11260 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondent nos.1 and 2, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jigar Khare, learned counsel, who appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

Since, the parties are represented before the Court itself and they do not seek to file any response (affidavit), thus the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage with the consent of the parties.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the third respondent, Janta Inter College, Paladi, Baghpat is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 stands applicable.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was selected in pursuance of the recruitment exercise undertaken by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj, as Lecturer (Economics) in the third respondent institution and an appointment order was issued on 04.08.2012 and the writ petitioner assumed the charge on 09.08.2012. Since, the regular Principal of the institution in question expired in the year, 2016, so exercise was sought to be undertaken for appointing the senior-most Lecturer as an Officiating Principal and subsequently the Officiating Principal also retired on 31.03.2018.

The writ petitioner claims to have been officiating as the Principal of the institution in question, pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2018, since 01.04.2018. As per the writ petitioner, on account of certain acts and omissions, to which the writ petitioner had no nexus, he was placed under suspension on 23.01.2023. Since, no decision whatsoever was taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat within a period of 60 days', as contemplated under the relevant statute, so the writ petitioner preferred representation for reinstatement in service.

According to the writ petitioner, a charge-sheet was also served upon the writ petitioner on 02.02.2023 containing as many as 26 charges. The petitioner claims to have submitted the reply to the same. However, according to the writ petitioner, the inquiry proceedings were conducted, wherein the writ petitioner was held guilty of the charges and inquiry report was also submitted on 20.03. 2023. It is also not in dispute between the parties that post holding of the departmental inquiry against the writ petitioner, a resolution has been passed by the third respondent, Committee of Management for dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner, which has been sent to the Board through the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat which is pending consideration, as no logical conclusion could be arrived at, as the Board itself is not functioning.

According to the writ petitioner, now on 26.06.2023, an order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, second respondent, whereby though the suspension of the writ petitioner has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, but the writ petitioner has been directed to be posted in his parent post having lien being the post of Lecturer and made admissible to the benefits in this regard.

Questioning the order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to the extent it strips off the writ petitioner to function as the Officiating Principal of Janta Inter College, Paladi, Baghpat and to reinstate him as Lecturer in Economics, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court entertained the writ petition on 31.07.2023, while passing the following orders :-

"Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the District Inspector of Schools though revokes the suspension of the writ petitioner as an officiating Principal, but in view of the nature of the charges, it directs the writ petitioner to be posted as Lecturer.

Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that the order, in fact, is without jurisdiction as at the best he may either approve or disapprove the suspension. But so far as the posting of the writ petitioner is concerned, he cannot demote the writ petitioner for the time being from officiating Principal to Lecturer as it tantamounts to taking away certain benefits.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel, who appears for the fourth respondent, Committee of Management has made a statement that on 28.07.2023, pursuant to the holding of departmental inquiry, a proposal has been passed for dispensing of the services of the writ petitioner and the same has been sent to the Board. However, in view of the fact that the Board is not functioning, thus approval under Section - 21 of the Act, 1982 has not been accorded. He further submits that the Committee of Management has lost confidence over the writ petitioner and further there is already a proposal of termination of the services of the writ petitioner.

Confronted with the said situation, Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks time to study the matter.

Put up this case on 10.08.2023, as fresh.

In the meantime, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall also examine the matter in the said aspect."

Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while assailing the order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat has sought to contend that the order impugned insofar as it relates to reinstatement of the writ petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Economics and not on the post of Officiating Principal is patently illegal besides being without authority of law as the issue which was laid before the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat was a decision either to approve or disapprove the suspension of the writ petitioner. Thus, the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat has travelled beyond the authority and the scope within which it had to passed an order. He thus submits that even in fact the finding recorded in the order dated 26.06.2023 that there are serious charges as the inquiry is being conducted in this regard also suffers from complete misreading of the records, as even in fact it is the stand of the parties before this Court that already the inquiry has been concluded and there is a proposal for dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner, which has been sent to the Board on 28.07.2023. He thus submits that the part of the order insofar as it denies posting of the writ petitioner and making him admissible on the post of Officiating Principal be set aside.

Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to revisit the entire matter in entirety granting liberty to the writ petitioner to also put forward their stand and version before it.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the respondent nos.3 and 4 on the other hand submits that in the wake of the seriousness of the charges as incorporated in the charge sheet as well as the finding recorded by the inquiry officer, which though has not been touched on merit by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, a conscious decision has been taken by him that the writ petitioner be not be accorded posting as an Officiating Principal as it would even in fact make the institution vulnerable to certain irregularities, which might be at the end of the writ petitioner and according to him, the order does not suffers from any illegality. He further submits that the Committee of Management of the institution in question to his knowledge has not challenged the order dated 26.06.2023, insofar as it pertains to revoking the suspension of the writ petitioner. He has also invited the attention of the Court towards to a document dated 28.07.2023 produced before the Court, so as to contend that there happens to be a proposal for dispensation of the services of the writ petitioner, which on account of non functioning of the Board is not being given a logical end as approval to the same is to be accorded under Section ? 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court while probing into the validity and the legality of the order dated 26.06.2023 has to bear in mind that while passing an order with regard to approval or disapproval of the suspension, the District Inspector of Schools is not supposed to go into the merit of the charges, however it has to accord a prima facie opinion as to whether the facts and the circumstances of the case warrant the delinquent teacher to be continued under suspension or not.

Here, in the present case that though the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat has noted the charges and the finding of the inquiry officer but he has consciously not recorded any finding on merits. The order in question, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition, though revokes the suspension order but places the writ petitioner as Lecturer instead of an Officiating Principal.

A pointed query was raised upon the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare, who appears for the Committee of Management, as to under which provision of law, the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat could have reduced the rank of the writ petitioner, which he was holding as an Officiating Principal, to which no specific provision has been pointed out. Even otherwise, this Court finds that when the matter was before the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat for approval/disapproval of the suspension of the writ petitioner, then altering the rank of the writ petitioner as an Officiating Principal, while posting him as a Lecturer after revoking the suspension order was not justified in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of Pramodini Agarwal vs. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and Ors. reported in 1994 (23) ALR 208 that District Inspector of Schools was not authorised to reduce the rank of the writ petitioner from an Officiating Principal to a lecturer.

Since, Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the matter be set aside and remitted back to the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to pass a fresh order revisiting the entire matter in totality, thus in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner :-

(a) The order dated 26.06.2023, passed by the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat is set aside;

(b) The matter stands remitted back to the second respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to revisit the entire issue and to pass a reasoned and a fresh order;

(d) On that date, the writ petitioner as well as the respondent nos.3 and 4 (Committee of Management) shall appear while furnishing their version in writing if they so choose;

(e) On that date, the version so submitted by the respective parties shall be exchanged;

(f) A date shall be fixed for hearing, which should not be later than 14.09.2023;

(g) The orders be passed by 27.09.2023;

(h) It shall be open for the parties to plead and argue all the legal and the factual issues, as available to them.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 24.8.2023

S Rawat