Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar Sharma vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 26 November, 2020
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 81 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6535 of 2020 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The Court prima facie notes that in terms of the impugned order, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur on an alleged failure on his part to include the name of the fourth respondent in the salary bill. It is not disputed before this Court that the Committee of Management had terminated the services of the fourth respondent and that the said respondent had preferred no appeal either before the Committee or the District Inspector of Schools as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act. However, pursuant to the direction issued by the Court on a writ petition preferred by the Committee being Writ-A No. 21979 of 2018, the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to disapprove the order of termination which was passed. Sri Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the judgement rendered by the Full Bench in Rishikesh Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others [2009 (9) ADJ 361] where it was held:-
"47. Thereafter, the Court came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid amendments as noted above and the addition of the two clauses in Regulation 31, the Principal or Headmaster of the Institution became competent to terminate the services of a Class-IV employee with further provision of an appeal and a representation to the Inspector of Schools thereafter. The Division Bench carefully examined the impact of the said amendments and came to the conclusion that the purpose of including the two clauses as brought by way of amendments in 1975 and 1978, clearly establish that the Principal is empowered to terminate the services of a Class-IV employee without taking prior approval of the Inspector. Such a decision by the Principal or Headmaster was to be final, subject to an appeal before the Committee of Management and then a further appeal to the Inspector. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment namely paragraphs 24 to 26 are quoted below:
"24. The services in the present case were terminated on 12.6.1977 and as such the Regulation 31 as amended by the 1975 notification was applicable. The question is, whether Regulation 31 as amended by the 1975 Notification requires prior approval of the Inspector before terminating the services a Class-IV employee or not.
It is correct that the cases (mentioned in paragraph 19 of this judgment) do support the submission of the plaintiff-appellant. However, these cases have not taken into account the amendment made in Regulation 31 by the 1975 or 1978 Notification. They have taken into account Regulation 31 as it was originally framed. These cases have not considered the Regulation 31 as amended from time to time and cannot be pressed to show that prior approval was necessary before terminating services of Class-IV employees. This question has to be decided in the light of the Regulation 31 of Chapter-III as amended.
Regulation 31 as it was originally framed required prior approval of the D.I.O.S. before terminating service of an employee. However, after addition of two clauses in Regulation 31 in 1975 it clearly empowered the principal to terminate the services of Class-IV employee. It further provided an appeal to the Committee of Management and thereafter to the Inspector itself. In case prior approval of Inspector was necessary before terminating services of Class-IV employee then what was the point in providing appeal first to the Committee of Management and then to the Inspector. In case the Inspector has already granted approval for terminating the service then can he change his decision in the appeal. In our opinion the purpose of including two clauses by 1975 notification, which continued with some modification by 1978 notification, clearly show that the principal is empowered to terminate the services of the Class-IV employee without taking any prior approval of the Inspector and his decision is final; it is subject to an appeal before the Committee of Management then to the appeal before the Inspector."
48. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid reasoning given in the decision of Pujari Yadav (supra) and we find that Regulation 31 stands qualified by making an express and separate provision for the procedure to be followed in the case of Class-IV employees and, therefore, the word ''employees' occurring in the opening sentence of Regulation 31 does not include within its fold, a Class-IV employee. It is for this reason that Regulation 31 to that extent stood excluded in its applicability to Class-IV employees. To our mind, the Regulation making Authority was conscious of the amendments brought about in Regulation 31 in 1975 and 1978, and it is for the said reason that the applicability of Regulation 31 to that extent has not been included in Regulation 100. The reasoning given in Pujari Yadav's case (supra) has our firm approval as we find that the amendments bring about a sea-change of procedure in relation to Class-IV employees with an exclusive dominant role assigned to the Head of the institution for taking disciplinary action. These amendments, which were introduced stepwise, in our opinion, exclude the role of the Inspector of Schools at the stage of taking action by the disciplinary authority. The amendments clearly and unambiguously, which have been quoted in detail in Appendix A to the judgment inPujari Yadav's case (supra), exhibit the intention of the rule making authority to clothe the Head of the institution with exclusive powers of initial disciplinary control unfettered by any prior sanction from any other authority.
71. Our answer to the questions referred to us are as under:
(i) For awarding a punishment as enumerated under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to a Class-IV employee of a institution recognized under the aforesaid Act, no prior approval or sanction from the Inspector of Schools is required.
(ii) The Division Bench judgments in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari v. District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar [2006 (3) ESC 1765 (All).] and Pujari Yadav v. Ram Briksh Yadav [2006 (65) ALR 767.] lay down the correct law in contradistinction to the Division Bench judgment of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj [2000 (39) ALR 27 (Alld).] and the other judgments to that effect.
It is thus prima facie evident that firstly there was no requirement of obtaining a prior approval from the Inspector before terminating the services of the private respondent. The Committee appears to have moved the Inspector on account of a misconception with respect to the legal position which in any case stands duly elucidated in Rishikesh Lal Srivastava. Secondly, the second respondent had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of termination except upon an appeal being laid before him by the aggrieved employee. It is admitted to parties that no such appeal was ever laid before the Inspector. Although the original record was summoned by the Court on 9 November 2020 the same has not been retained.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court hereby commands the second respondent to appear personally on 14 December 2020 and respond to what has been noted above.
Include in the additional cause list of 14 December 2020.
Order Date :- 26.11.2020 LA/-