[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Shri Mutum Shyamo Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 19 December, 2025
Non-reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 184 of 2023
Shri Mutum Shyamo Singh, aged about 58 years,
s/o (L) M. Lukhoi Singh of Thoubal Kiyam Siphai,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-795138
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal -
795001.
2. The Director, Education (S), Lamphelpat, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795008.
3. The Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III Thoubal, Mini Secretariat,
Thoubal D.C. Complex, Thoubal-795138.
4. The Secretary, School Management Committee, Tangjeng Ningthou
High School (Aided), P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur -
795138.
.... Respondents
With
Shri Mutum Shyamo Singh, aged about 58 years, s/o (L) M. Lukhoi
Singh of Thoubal Kiyam Siphai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
District, Manipur-795138
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat Complex, Babupara, Imphal -
795001.
2. The Director, Education (S), Lamphelpat, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795008.
3. The Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III Thoubal, Mini Secretariat,
Thoubal D.C. Complex, Thoubal-795138.
4. The Secretary, School Management Committee, Tangjeng Ningthou
High School (Aided), P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur -
795138.
5. T. Bheigyachandra Singh, aged about 53 years, s/o. (L) T. Thambou
Singh of Kiyam, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur-
795138.
.... Respondents
With
Shri T. Bheigyachandra Singh, aged about 53 years, s/o. (L) T.
Thambou Singh of Kiyam, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District,
Manipur- 795138.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
-
1. The State of Manipur through Commissioner/Secretary(Education/S),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Director, Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur,
P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
3. The Zonal Education Officer, Zone-III, Thoubal, Government of
Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur -795138.
4. The Secretary, the School Managing Committee Tangjeng Ningthou
High School (Aided), P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur -
795138.
..... Respondents
5. Mutum Shyamo Singh, aged about 53 years, s/o. (L) M. Lukhoi Singh,
a resident of Thoubal Kiyam Siphai, P.O. & P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal
District, Manipur.
.... Private Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER [CAV]
19.12.2025
[1] Heard Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned GA for the State respondents and Mr.
Th. James, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the School Management
Committee (SCM).
[2] The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner inter-alia
challenging the impugned show cause order dated 10.06.2022 issued by the
ZEO, Zone-III, Thoubal and his suspension order dated 15.06.2022 issued
by the Secretary, Tangjeng Ningthou High School coupled with prayers for
releasing his pending pay and allowances and the formation of the School
Management Committee. For convenience sake, the prayer of the petitioner
is reproduced as under:-
i) to admit the writ petition;
ii) issue rule nisi and call for records;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay
the monthly salary of the petitioner from November 2018 to
August 2020 (22 months), March 2021 to December 2021 (10
months) and January 2022 to January 2023 (13 months), total
45 months and thereafter direct the respondents to regularly pay
the monthly salary etc;
iv) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the
School Management Committee formed vide Order dated
13.01.2020, Order dated 10.03.2021 as well as the School
Managing Committee wherein Y. Umakanta is the Secretary;
v) direct the authority to constitute a new school managing
committee as per the Manipur Education Code;
vi) issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing/setting aside the
show cause notice dated 10.06.2022, order dated 15.06.2022
of the ZEO, Zone-III, Thoubal and order dated 15.06.2022 of
the Secretary, Tangjeng Ningthou High School, and
in the interim to direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary
of the petitioner and to pass any other appropriate interim order
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[3] During the course of the proceedings, Mr. Th. James, learned counsel
appearing for the School Management Committee (R4) raised the question
of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in terms of the
provisions of the Government Aided School Teacher (Discipline, Punishment
& Appeal) Rules, the petitioner had not approached the competent authority,
and accordingly the present writ petition ought to be dismissed.
[4] On the other hand, Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the provisions cited by the learned counsel for the
School Management Committee is not applicable in as much as the
provisions relied upon relates to punishment to be given by a valid
management committee in terms of an enquiry, and whereas in the present
case, the enquiry is still pending and thus, the said provisions are inapplicable
in the present case of the petitioner.
[5] Upon hearing both the submissions of the contesting ld.
Counsel, this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 opined that the following
issues arose in the present writ petition:
(i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the
suspension order passed by the School Management
Committee in view of the provisions of the Government Aided
Private School Teacher (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal)
Rules or not?
(ii) Whether the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules with respect
to the suspension especially the period prescribed in Rule 10 of
the CCS (CCA) Rules will be applicable in the suspension order
issued under Rule 2 of the aforesaid Pension Rules or not?
(iii) Whether the School Management Committee constituted
in the year 2021 is validly constituted or not?
(iv) Whether the suspension order issued by a School
Management Committee, not duly constituted, is valid or not?
[6] In the present order, this Court is examining the question of
maintainability of the writ petition in view of the availability of alternative
remedy under the statute. For better appreciation of the rival contentions, the
provisions of the Government Aided Private School Teachers (Discipline,
Punishment and Appeal) Rules are reproduced herein as under:
"SECTION -III
Government Aided Private School Teachers (Discipline,
Punishment and Appeal) Rules :
No employee of an Aided School shall be dismissed,
removed, suspended, discharged from Service or awarded
punishment except in accordance with the following rules:-
1. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons
and as here-in-after provided be imposed on a teacher in a
Government Aided Private School, namely:-
i) Censure
ii) Withholding of increments.
iii) Withholding of promotion.
iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused to the school by negligence, fraud or misappropriation of
school fees and funds.
v) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale.
vi) Compulsory retirement.
vii) Termination of service.
Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty
within the meaning of this rule.
i) Stoppage
ii) Retirement of a teacher in accordance with the provisions
relating to his super annuation or retirement.
iii) Replacement of an unqualified teacher (not approved by the
Director of Education) by a qualified one.
iv) Discharge of a teacher appointed in a short-term officiating
vacancy caused by grant of leave, suspension etc.
Explanation: The termination of the service of a teacher
who has satisfactorily completed the period of probation will be
treated as punishment, unless the necessity for the post has
ceased to exist in the meanwhile.
2. Suspension: The Managing Committee of a school may, with
the prior consent of the Inspector of Schools in respect of High
Schools, Deputy Inspector of Schools in respect of M.E. Schools
and Assistant Inspector of Schools for other Schools, suspend
teacher where disciplinary proceedings against him are
contemplated or are pending or where a case against him in
respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. An
order under this rule may be revoked by the authority which made
the order or by the Director of Education.
3. Punishing Authority: 1) The punishing authority in respect of
Government Aided Private School teacher shall comprise (i) the
Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School (ii) The
Secretary/Manager of the Managing Committee (iii) a nominee of
the Director of Education (not below the rank of Inspector of
Schools in respect of High Schools, Deputy Inspector of ME
Schools and Assistant Inspector of Schools for other Schools if
the case is against the Head of the School.
The punishing authority may except the Headmaster or
Principal of the School where action is proposed to be taken
against a teacher of the School, he shall however have no right
.....
2. The punishing authority may impose any of the penalties
specified in Rule 1.
4. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: No order imposing
any of the penalties specified clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 1, shall be
passed except after:
a) The teacher is informed in writing of the proposal to take
action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed
to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation
he may wish to make.
b) Such representative, if any, is taken into consideration by the
punishing Authority.
5. Procedure for imposing major penalties: No order imposing
on a teacher any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (vii)
of Rule 1, shall be passed except after in inquiry, hold as far as
may be, in the manner as indicated below-
a) The punishing authority shall frame definite charges on the
basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be
held. Such charges together with a statement of the allegations
on which they are based shall be communicated in writing to the
teacher and he shall be required to submit within such time as
may be specified by the Punishing Authority but not later than
two weeks a written statement of his defence and also to state
whether he desires to be heard in person.
b) On receipt of the written statement of defence or if no such
statement is received within the time specified the Punishing
Authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not
admitted or, if it considers it necessary to do, appoint an
enquiring officer for the purpose.
c) At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Authority shall
prepare a report of the enquiry, recording its findings on each of
the charges together with reasons therefore.
d) The Punishing Authority shall consider the record of the
enquiry and record its findings on each charge. If the Punishing
Authority is of the opinion that nay of the penalties specified in
clauses (v) to (vii) should be imposed, it shall:-
i) Furnish to the teacher a copy of the report of the enquiry
Authority; and
ii) Give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in
regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified
time not exceeding two weeks such representation as he may
wish to make against the proposed;
iii) On receipt of the representation, if any made by the teacher
as aforesaid the punishing authority should determine what
penalty, if any should be imposed to the teacher and pass
appropriate orders on the case.
6. Appellate Authority: All appeals against orders of the
punishing authority will be heard by an Appellate Tribunal
consisting of the Director of Education (Chairman) and two non-
official members, (i) Secretary of an Aided School and (ii) a
Principal/Headmaster of an Aided School to be nominated by the
Government and the Principal/Headmaster of a school to which
the dispute relates shall not function as members of the Appellate
Tribunal when that case is heard.
7. Appeals:
(i) No appeal shall lie against any order of punishment specified
in clause (i) of Rule 1.
(ii) A teacher may make an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
against an order of the management which denies or varies to
his disadvantage his pay, allowances and other conditions of
service.
(iii) No appeal shall lie against the Order of appellate Tribunal.
8. Period of Limitation for appeal: No appeal shall be
entertained unless it is submitted within a period of thirty days
from the date on which the appellate receives a copy of the order
appealed against.
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain the appeal
after the expiry of the said period if it satisfied that the appellant
had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time.
9. Consideration of Appeal: In the case of an appeal against an
order imposing the penalties (ii) to (vii) specified in Rule 1, the
Appellate Tribunal shall consider:
a) Whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been
complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has
resulted in denial of justice.
b) Whether the findings are justified; and
c) Whether or inadequate and pass orders:
i) Setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty;
or
ii) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty
with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of
the case provided that,
a) No order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed
unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making
representation which he may wish to make against the enhanced
penalty.
b) The Appellate Tribunal shall not impose any enhanced
penalty which the Authority, which made the order appealed
against, is not competent in the case to impose.
In the case of an appeal against any order specified in sub-rule
(iii) of rule 7, the appellate tribunal shall consider all
circumstances of the case and pass order as it deems just and
equitable.
[7] The petitioner in the present writ petition inter-alia challenges his
suspension order dated 15.06.2022 issued by the Secretary, Tangjeng
Ningthou High School, which as per Rule 2 of the Government Aided Private
School Teachers (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal) Rules (supra) is
contemplated where disciplinary proceedings against a teacher are
contemplated or are pending or where a case against him in respect of any
criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Rule 2 thus, stands in
contradistinction with Rule 1 of the said Government Aided Private School
Teachers (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal) Rules (supra) which provides
for penalties which may be imposed by the punishing authority under Rule 3
in as much as 'suspension' as a mode of penalty is neither prescribed in Rule
1 or in the explanations provided thereto. Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel
for the petitioner presses into assistance the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Union of India: (2008)
5 SCC 632 and State of UP v. Ehsan: AIR 2023 SC 5124 to emphasise the
point that availability of alternative remedy is not a rule of absolute bar to the
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.
[8] In other words, it is only when the punishing authority under Rule 3
of the Rules (supra) proceeds under the prescribed procedure laid out in Rule
4 or 5 against the petitioner to impose any of the penalties given in Rule 1,
only then the petitioner would have locus to move an appeal under Rule 7
before the appellate authority/appellate tribunal so described in Rule 6. It is
submitted that as no penalty has been imposed against the petitioner, the
appeal under the aforesaid rules will not be available to the petitioner and
hence the present writ petition is maintainable.
[9] Coming to the argument of Mr. Th. James, learned counsel
appearing for the School Management Committee (R4) that the alternative
remedy as contained in the Government Aided School Teacher (Discipline,
Punishment & Appeal) Rules must be exhausted before approaching
invoking the writ jurisdiction, he relies on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the cases of M/s Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh: AIR 2021 SC 2114 and Veerapa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd.:
AIR 1952 SC 192 which held that specific provisions under the relevant
statute have to be exhausted first before invoking the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court finds it trite to point out that
availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to approaching the
writ court under Article 226, but rather a rule of discretion as has been well-
settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even if
presuming that such an alternative remedy to exists as alleged by learned
counsel for R4, it is noted that the present writ has been instituted challenging
not only the suspension order of the petitioner but inter-alia the very legality
of the constitution of the School Management Committee and the vires of
such a committee to issue the suspension order of the petitioner. The
authority has not imposed any penalty to the petitioner so as to invoke the
remedy of appeal under the rules. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to
relegate the present writ petitioner to the alleged alternate remedy under the
Government Aided School Teacher (Discipline, Punishment & Appeal) Rules.
[10] In light of the discussions qua the factual position highlighted
above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is
maintainable against the suspension order passed by the School
Management Committee.
[11] List the writ petitions and connected matters on 16.01.2026 for
further proceedings.
JUDGE
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.12.19
MARING 15:20:18 +05'30'
