C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 37491 ALL

Allahabad High Court

C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 14 November, 2024

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75325
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7155 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur Thru. Its Manager Sunil Kumar Singh @ Sunil Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Secondary Education) Lko And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Raj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Pandey,Sharad Pathak
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 5 and 8, and Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki (DIOS). Also under challenge is the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, served on the petitioners from the office of Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents for not releasing the post retiral benefits of respondent no.7 on the basis of papers, if any, submitted by the DIOS and to refer the matter of illegal release of salary of respondent no.7 for the month of December, 2023 to February 2024 by respondent no.6 for taking appropriate decision in the matter.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that respondent no.7, who was working as the Principal of the institution in question, was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management vide order dated 18.12.2023. The disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against respondent no.7 with the issuance of the charge sheet dated 30.12.2023. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1921) more particularly sub-section (6) and (7) an order of suspension has to be approved by the DIOS. It emerges that the approval was not granted by the DIOS who, vide order dated 02.02.2024, which is challenged in the instant petition, a copy of which is Annexure SCA-1 to the short counter affidavit dated 24.10.2024 filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5 and 8, formed a Committee of three persons to inquire into the charges/evidence and for the purpose of spot inspection.

4. Subsequent thereto, based on the order dated 02.02.2024 an order dated 03.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-33 to the petition, was passed by the DIOS whereby the suspension order of respondent no.7 was disapproved.

5. The petitioners, raising a challenge to the order dated 03.02.2024, filed Writ-A No.2592 of 2024 in re: C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur Haidergarh through Manager Sunil Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and 5 others. The writ Court vide order dated 25.04.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-27 to the petition, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 03.02.2024 until further orders.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.7 filed Special Appeal No.113 of 2024 in re: Ram Kumar Shukla vs. C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur Haidergarh through Manager Sunil Kumar and others. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-28 to the petition, allowed the appeal and the order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Writ-A No.2592 of 2024 was set-aside and the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.

7. The reason which appears to have prevailed upon the Division Bench of this Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein was that respondent no.7 herein, who was appellant before the Division Bench, had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024. Therefore the Division Bench held that the cause, if any, of the respondents/petitioners herein has been rendered infructuous qua the order dated 03.02.2024. The Division Bench, however, granted liberty to the respondents therein/petitioners herein to question the validity of the order dated 02.02.2024 in accordance with law.

8. In pursuance to the aforesaid liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court instant writ petition has been filed raising a challenge to the order dated 02.02.2024 and for the reliefs, as already indicated above, including for setting aside the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024.

9. It is also indicated that the respondent no.7 had been issued a charge sheet dated 30.12.2023 and after inquiry, a proposed dismissal order dated 28.03.2024 had been sent for approval to the DIOS. However, no approval was granted by the DIOS and the respondent no.7 also retired on 31.03.2024.

10. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on account of embezzlement of funds that had been done by respondent no.7 an FIR had been lodged by the Manager of the Committee of Management on 22.02.2024. Copy of the FIR is Annexure 15 to the petition.

11. Subsequent thereto a three Member Committee which had been constituted by the DIOS vide order dated 02.02.2024 has submitted the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024 per which a clean chit has been given to respondent no.7 pertaining to the embezzlement of funds.

12. The argument is that firstly, as the DIOS had no jurisdiction to constitute a committee as has been done vide order dated 02.02.2024 which stands settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Janta Inter College Amethi vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ PetitionNo.4482 (SS) of 2020 decided on 26.02.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-34 to the petition, consequently the order dated 02.02.2024 is itself illegal considering the aforesaid judgment of this Court. It is further contended that as the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024 has been submitted by the three Member Committee which had been constituted by the DIOS vide order dated 02.02.2024 consequently the inquiry report also merits to be set-aside.

13. The further argument is that as the respondent no.7 has already retired on 31.03.2024 consequently the said inquiry report should not be read either against the management or in favour of respondent no.7. No other ground has been urged.

14. Per contra, Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7, has argued that once admittedly the respondent no.7 has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024 and neither the suspension order had been approved nor in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 30.12.2023, the punishment of proposed dismissal that had been passed by the Committee of Management vide order dated 28.03.2024, a copy of which is Annexure 40 to the petition, has been approved till date and thus even if an inquiry report may have been submitted vide the report dated 30.05.2024 the same may have no relevance in the matter apart from the fact that the petitioners would have no locus to challenge the said order.

15. The other argument is that a perusal of the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024 would indicate that it has been submitted in pursuance to a letter sent by the Superintendent of Police, Bababanki dated 03.01.2024 in pursuance to an application that had been received in his office by which he has required the DIOS to submit a report after verification of the facts at the end of the institution and the bank. It is contended that once the report has been submitted by the DIOS or rather by a three Member Committee which had been constituted by the DIOS yet it has been submitted in pursuance to the letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, consequently the same would have no relevance to the arguments that have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and thus the question would only remain academic more particularly when respondent no.7 has already retired on 31.03.2024.

16. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the records.

17. From perusal of records, it emerges that respondent no.7 had been placed under suspension on 18.12.2023. The suspension order had been disapproved by the competent authority i.e. the DIOS vide order dated 03.02.2024 against which the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024. The petitioners had also issued a charge sheet to respondent no.7 on 30.12.2023 which culminated in an order of proposed dismissal dated 28.03.2024 which has not been approved by the DIOS till date. The respondent no.7 has also retired on 31.03.2024.

18. It is admitted by the learned counsels for the contesting parties that the provisions of CSR 351-A are not applicable meaning thereby that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued against respondent no.7 after his retirement and as such for all practical purposes once the proposed dismissal order has not been approved by the DIOS and the petitioner has already retired on 31.03.2024 thus even if a proposed dismissal order has been passed by the Committee of Management, yet it would have no effect.

19. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that respondent no.7 retired on 31.03.2024. There is no approval to either the suspension order or even the proposed dismissal order dated 28.03.2024. Admittedly, no further action can be taken against respondent no.7 with regard to the disciplinary proceedings by the Committee of Management.

20. The grievance of the petitioners is that by means of order dated 02.02.2024 upon the suspension order having been sent for approval the DIOS had constituted a three Member Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the matter. As per the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Janta Inter College (supra), the DIOS would have no authority for constitution of such a Committee.

21. The aforesaid argument may be attractive on the face of record but the fact of the matter remains that with the retirement of respondent no.7 on 31.03.2024 the formation of a three Member Committee has no relevance in the matter and would only remain an academic question. The Court is not inclined to decide the said academic question in this petition and is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

22. It would be relevant to mention that the challenge raised to consequential order dated 03.03.2024 passed on the basis of the order dated 02.02.2024 has been negated as the writ petition filed against the same has already been dismissed by this Court.

23. So far as the challenge raised to the inquiry report dated 30.05.2024, which incidentally has been submitted by a three Member Committee, suffice to state that a perusal of the said report would indicate that the said report has been submitted in pursuance to a letter sent by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, which letter in turn was issued subsequent to the FIR dated 22.02.2024 that has been lodged by the Manager of the Committee of Management i.e. the petitioner no.1. Once an FIR had been lodged and the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, had himself required the DIOS to submit his report after verification of the facts, both from the institution and the bank, consequently in case the three Member Committee itself which had been constituted by the DIOS had submitted its report no fault can be found in the same.

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.11.2024

A. Katiyar