Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Shri Lallan Ji ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 19 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)AWC1038, (1998)3UPLBEC2258
JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. In these three writ petitions, common questions of law and facts are involved and parties are also common, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 1560 (M/S)/96 is treated as the leading case.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that election of office-bearers and members of Committee of Management of the College, known as Shri Lallan Ji Brahmchari Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar. was held on 13.11.1995, tn which Lallan Ji Brahmchari was elected as Manager of the College, besides other office bearers and members. It is stated that there were serious charges against respondent No. 3. who was holding office of Principal of the college, on ad hoc basis, after retirement of permanent regular Principal, therefore, he was suspended on 8.2.96 by Committee of Management. Papers relating to suspension of respondent No. 3 Ram, Avadh Singh were submitted to District Inspector of Schools for approval. It was on 12.11.96 that charge-sheet was framed and Sub-committee was appointed to enquire into the charges on 13.2.96. Thereafter a notice is stated to have been sent to respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh under registered-cover ; but no reply of the same was received. Another notice was thereafter sent by enquiring committee fixing 22.2.1996. Since Ram Avadh Singh did not co-operate with the enquiry, consequently enquiry committee submitted its report on 9.3.1996 to the Committee of Management. Committee of Management, on receipt of the report of enquiry committee, sent a notice to respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh, asking him to appear before it on 15.3.96. On the said date, respondent No. 3 did not appear before Committee of Management. Consequently, notice was published in newspaper. On 15.3.97 respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh is alleged to have sought time to file reply. Time was granted by the Management Committee, to respondent No. 3, till 24.3.96 and he was asked to appear before Committee of Management on the said date. Regarding fixation of date for appearance and hearing a letter was also sent to respondent, on 12.3.96. Respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh did not appear before Committee of Management, nor filed his explanation. Consequently, in its meeting held on 24.3.96, the Committee of Management resolved to terminate the services of respondent No, 3 Ram Avadh Singh. After passing the said resolution, requisite papers were sent to District Inspector of Schools on 14.4.1996. which was received at the office of District Inspector of Schools. It is stated that District Inspector of Schools, in view of the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services and Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations. 1985, was required to communicate said order resolution to Services Commission, but papers were not sent. Meanwhile, District Inspector of Schools, directed the Manager vide letter dated 31.5.96 and 5.6.96, to make payment of arrears of salary of respondent No. 3. Committee of Management on receipt of the said letters, sought clarification from the District Inspector of Schools. It was vide notice dated 14.6.96, District Inspector of Schools directed Committee of Management to show-cause as to why account of the college be not placed under single operation. On receipt of the said letter, no reply was submitted, but Manager of the college asked District Inspector of Schools for guidance Marg Darshon. Thereafter, vide order dated 8.7.96 placed account of the college under single operation by the District Inspector of Schools.
3. Challenging validity of the order dated 8.7.96. petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No. 1560 (M/S)/96, before this Court and this Court vide Interim order dated 1.8.96 stayed operation of the order dated 8.7.96. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court. District Inspector of Schools, withdrew his order dated 8.7.96 and thereafter, salary of members of teaching and non-teaching staff, except respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh, is being paid in accordance with law.
4. District Inspector of Schools after passing of the order dated 8.7.96, by means of order dated 2.11.96 directed Committee of Management, to pay full salary to respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh. Challenging validity of the said order. Writ Petition bearing No. 2345 (M/S)/96, was filed. It was directed to be connected with Writ Petition No. 1560 (M/S)/96. In the meanwhile Writ Petition Bearing No. 6145 (S/S)/96. was filed by one Shyam Sunder Dwivedi, who is alleged to have been posted in place of respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh. for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to make payment of his salary, as he has worked for more than thirty days in the Institution and his salary was not being paid in the pay scale admissible to Principal of the college.
5. This Court vide order dated 21.11.1996, passed in Writ Petition bearing No. 2345 (M/S)/96, directed the Committee of Management to make payment of subsistence allowance to Sri Ram Avadh Singh-respondent No. 3. Said order is still operative.
6. It is admitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, subsistence allowance is being paid to respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, referred to above, it was duty of the District Inspector of Schools, to forward the papers within thirty days from the date of its receipt, from the management, to the Commission, but he has failed to discharge his statutory duty--therefore, he was liable to be directed to forward the said papers to the Commission. It was also urged that Shyam Sunder Dwivedi, who was appointed in officiating capacity in place of respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh. was entitled to receive his full salary and that. Ram Avadh Singh, respondent No. 3 was not entitled to receive his salary.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh submitted that undisputedly, election of office-bearer and members of Committee of Management was held on 13.10.91. In which Ram Pravesh Shukla was elected as Manager of the college, and on expiry of three years, another election of the office-bearers and members of Committee of Management was held on 10.11.1994, According to him signatures of the Manager elected on 10.11.1994 were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 24.12.94. Said order of attestation is still intact. It was submitted that during currency of the term of Committee of Management elected on 10.11.1994, no other election within the period of three years could be held. However, petitioners are alleged to have held another election on 13.11.1995 and District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of Lallanji Brahmchari, who is alleged to have been elected on 13.11.1995. It is submitted that Ram Pravesh Shukla was entitled to hold the office of Manager, who is alleged to have been elected as Manager. It has further been stated that two petitions bearing No. 1616/96 and 1225/95, with regard to validity of the election of office-bearer and members of Committee of Management, are pending before this Court.
9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, it has been submitted by respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh that Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to terminate his services. Writ petitions filed by the petitioner, is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in these petitions does not dispute validity of the election held on 10.11.94 and urged that the elections held on 13.11.1995 was a valid election and the Committee of Management elected in the said election, was entitled to pass resolution.
11. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. In view of the facts that order dated 8.7.96 has already been withdrawn by District Inspector of Schools, and thereafter salary is being paid to members of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college, in accordance with law, Writ Petition bearing No. 1560 (M/S)/1996 has become infructuous. Same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed having become infructuous.
13. So far as Writ Petition bearing No. 6146 (S/S)/96 is concerned, same has been filed by Sri Shyam Sunder Dwivedi. pleading that since he has been working for more than 230 days, therefore, he was entitled to receive his full salary. Sub-section (7) of Section 16G of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, provides as under :
"No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court."
14. A reading of the aforesaid section reveals that order of suspension can remain in operation, unless it is approved by District Inspector of Schools, only for sixty days. Even if it is presumed that order of suspension passed against respondent No. 3 was a valid order. It remained operative only for a period of sixty days and thereafter it ceased to have effect automatically. Therefore, respondent No. 3 was liable to be reinstated and was entitled to function as Principal of the college. He was also entitled to receive his full salary. Admittedly, salary of respondent No. 3 has not been paid, he is being paid only subsistence allowance in terms of the order dated 21.11.1996. Therefore, respondents are liable to be directed to reinstate the respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh and to permit him to function as .Principal of the college, and to pay his arrears of salary (except for the period of sixty days), adjusting the amount if any paid to the said respondent as subsistence allowance.
15. Now for the purposes of Writ Petition No. 2345 (M/S)/96, it is necessary to refer to Regulation 6 of U. P. Secondary Education Services and Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations. 1985. which provides as under :
"6. Inspector to forward the papers.--The Inspector shall ensure that the documents are complete as required in Regulation 5 and shall forward the same ordinarily within 30 days from the date of receipt of the papers in the first instance from the Management. He may point out the defects, if any. In the proceedings of the Management."
16. In view of the provisions of Regulation 6 referred to above, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to forward the papers submitted by the petitioner Committee to the Commission, within the time prescribed under the Act. which he has failed to forward. Therefore, the District Inspector of Schools is liable to be directed to forward papers to the Commission, within fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. He may. however, point out to the Commission, the defects, if any. In the proceedings conducted by the Management, for awarding the punishment.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Writ Petition No. 1560 (MS)/96 is dismissed as infructuous. Writ Petition No. 6146 (S/S)/96 is also dismissed. It is, however, observed that Sri Shyam Sunder Dwivedi, shall be entitled to his salary for the period of sixty days only, if his appointment in the officiating capacity is ultimately held valid by the Commission. Writ Petition No. 2345 (M/S)/96 is allowed, and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to forward papers relating to termination of respondent No. 3. to the Commission. Respondent No. 3 Ram Avadh Singh shall be at liberty, in case papers are forwarded by District Inspector of Schools, to the Commission, to show to the Commission that petitioner's Committee of Management had no authority to terminate his services and the resolution passed by it, was null and void, and if such an objection is raised, petitioner's Committee of Management can show to the Commission that the election held on 13.11.1995 was a valid election. It is further provided that the respondent No. 3 shall be entitled to be reinstated and to receive his salary after adjusting the amount, if any, paid to him as subsistence allowance.