C/M Adarsh Inter College vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1565 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 25 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- C/M Adarsh Inter College
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Sankalp Narayan for the third respondent.

This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2022 dismissing Writ-A No. 21546 of 2022 filed by the appellant questioning the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hathras refusing to accord approval to the order of suspension passed by the appellant against the third respondent.

A perusal of the record would reveal that a charge-sheet mentioning 16 charges was drawn against the third respondent which formed basis of the order of suspension. As the charges were vague and one of the charges related to registration of a criminal case of such offences, where the maximum penalty was not higher than three years imprisonment, the District Inspector of Schools on perusal of the charges drawn, did not consider it to be a fit case where approval of suspension be accorded.

The appellant questioned the order of the District Inspector of Schools on various grounds one of them being that while considering approval of suspension, the District Inspector of Schools is not to record findings as regards the merits of the charge as that could be after the enquiry is held. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Tej Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2031 (DB).

Sri Sankalp Narayan, who appears for the third respondent, submits that the District Inspector of Schools has not recorded any conclusive finding qua the charges but has found the charges to be vague and not so serious as may warrant an order of suspension. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully.

The charge sheet drawn against the third respondent is on record at page-64 of the paper-book. A perusal thereof would reveal that the charges are not specific. Even the date and time of alleged misconduct is not disclosed, though, in one of the charges, it is mentioned that there was a criminal case registered against the third respondent. The District Inspector of Schools has accorded consideration to the aforesaid aspect and has found that the criminal charge related to a petty offence alleged to have been committed outside the premises of the institution and has, therefore, refused to accord approval.

The learned Single Judge has accorded consideration to the reasoning recorded by the District Inspector of Schools and has held that the order disapproving suspension requires no interference.

We do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.1.2023

N.S.Rathour