Allahabad High Court
Dr. Gyanvati Dixit vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 11 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20782 A.F.R. Reserved Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1059 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Gyanvati Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Avdhesh Kumar Pandey,Shreshth Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Kumar, assisted by Sri Shreshth Srivastava and Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20/12/2024 bearing reference no.6240-46/2024-25 2025, passed by respondent no. 4. A copy of which is contained in ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this writ petition.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the Principal of Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur and to pay her salary regularly notwithstanding the order dated 20.12.2024 by which the earlier suspension order dated 9.11.2024, has been confirmed."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in LRNS Inter College, Naimisharan on 23.01.1993. Thereafter, she was appointed on the post of Principal at the Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur pursuant on the recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission on 22.08.2011.
4. The order of single operation dated 04.01.2019 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur on account of two rival groups competing for the Committee of Management of the Institution in question, therefore, authorized controller was appointed.
5. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner raised a voice against the repeated transfers of various employees/teachers of the Institution, by respondent no.5 under the approval of respondent no.4 resulting 33 posts fallen vacant and also against her harassment, which gave a cause to the respondent no.5 and respondent no.4 to take coercive action against her.
6. Opposite party no.5 has initially issued a suspension order on 04.10.2024 against the petitioner under Section 16(G) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1921") by which the petitioner has been suspended from the post of Principal, Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur, prima-facie, on the ground of failure on part of the petitioner to comply the directions of this Court for reinstating one Smt. Rajrani into service.
7. The above-mentioned suspension order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ-A No.9746 of 2024, in re: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. & Others, which was decided vide order dated 05.11.2024. This Court was pleased to quash the above-mentioned suspension order, with a direction that consequences to follow under law. This Court has given liberty to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law (Annexure No.9).
8. The order dated 05.11.2024 was uploaded on 06.11.2024 and the same was served upon opposite party no.5 but opposite party no.5 without reinstating the petitioner has again issued a suspension order against the petitioner under Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 on 09.11.2024. Petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 09.11.2024 before this Court by filing Writ-A No.11061 of 2024 (Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others), which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2024 but without expressing any opinion on the ground urged by the petitioner, so far it relates to the violation of Section-16-G (5)(a) of the Act, 1921.
9. The petitioner met opposite party no.2 on 12.11.2024 apprising him about her victimization at the behest of opposite party no.5.
10. During the pendency of the subsequent writ petition, counsel representing opposite party no.5, through the short counter-affidavit, has brought on record one letter under the heading of charge-sheet/show-cause dated 20.11.2024 by which the petitioner was required to submit her explanation.
11. From perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 20.11.2024 it would reveal that in the aforesaid letter the allegations were referred calling reply of the petitioner so that the charge-sheet could be issued to the petitioner. Significantly, no material which makes the basis of allegation were served upon the petitioner. The aforesaid letter would further reveal that by the date issuance of the aforesaid letter opposite party no.5 has yet not issued any charge-sheet.
12. After the receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner through her letter dated 05.12.2024 denied the allegations and requested to furnish the charge-sheet together with the documents so that the petitioner could give reply to the charge-sheet.
13. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner which was served upon the petitioner on 15.01.2025. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order approved the suspension order dated 09.11.2024 in exercise of powers under section 16-G (7) of the Act, 1921.
14. While assailing the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.12.2024, Sri Sudeep Kumar has stated that the order passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 16-G (7) read with Regulation No.39 of Chapter-III under the Act, 1921 can only be passed after affording an opportunity to the delinquent employee in view of the provisions contained in Regulation-39 read with Regulation-36 of Chapter-III under the Act, 1921.
15. Sri Sudeep Kumar has, however, submitted that the aforesaid provision of law nowhere categorically provides that an opportunity of hearing has to be accorded to the employee/ Teacher/Principal/ management yet the same has been evolved through various judicial pronouncements of this Court wherein this Court has held that an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the aggrieved person before the District Inspector of Schools either approves or rejects the suspension order.
16. Attention has been drawn towards para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 SCC OnLine All 602, paras-3 & 5 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari Singh Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8499; para-8 of Deshraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 4473, and paras 6 & 11 of Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine All 1310.
17. Sri Sudeep Kumar has fairly submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge in re; C/M of Janta Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, Writ-A No.909 of 2020, vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2020, has observed that opportunity of hearing is not required before approving the suspension order but the aforesaid judgment has been delivered by the Hon'ble Single Judge without appreciating the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra) in correct perspective. Sri Sudeep Kumar has, however, referred para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra), which categorically says that if all the required papers and informations as prescribed under sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 and Regulation 39 have been submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools to obtain approval of suspension, then opportunity of hearing at the stage of granting approval or disapproval is not required to be afforded to the Management or the employee. But if the employee has submitted any representation or objection against the order of suspension, then the District Inspector of Schools shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Management and the concerned employee while passing the order of approval or disapproval which must contain brief reasons. Perusal thereof clearly mandates two conditions; first, if all required papers and informations as prescribed under the law have been submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools to obtain approval of suspension, then opportunity of hearing is not required and if any employee has submitted any representation or objection against the order of suspension, then such opportunity would be required. In the present case, the impugned order approving the suspension order does not indicate that it has been passed by proper application of mind inasmuch as no brief reasons have been recorded by the District Inspector of Schools as to how the suspension order has been passed by opposite party no.5 warrants confirmation. It is clear that at the time of passing the impugned order neither any representation of opposite party no.5 was available to opposite party no.4 nor the charge sheet was available with opposite party no.4.
18. Besides, after passing the suspension order dated 09.11.2024, the petitioner personally met with the Director, Madhyamik Education (opposite party no.2) on 12.11.2024 (Annexure No.14) apprising about her victimization at the behest of opposite party no.5, therefore, the specific comments should have been asked from opposite party no.4 by opposite party no.2 and in that way before passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 by opposite party no.4, one opportunity of hearing could have been given to her in terms of para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra).
19. Sri Sudeep Kumar has, therefore, submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in re; Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College and another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and another, 1999, SCC OnLine All 693, vide para-4 thereof has held that Regulation 39 of Chapter-III under the Act, 1921 provides the particulars, which the report regarding suspension of the Head of the Institution or of the Teacher to be submitted to the Inspector is to contain and also provides the documents, which are to accompany the report. These provisions clearly demonstrate that approval or disapproval of suspension of a Teacher including Principal is not an empty formality. The Inspector is required to address himself to the grounds on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie supporting the charges levelled against Head of the Institution or Teacher as the case may be. Sri Sudeep Kumar has reiterated that the impugned order granting approval to the suspension order suffers from patent illegality and is without application of mind inasmuch as while passing the impugned order, opposite party no.4 has failed to record his opinion as contemplated under Section 16-G (7) read with Regulation 39 of Chapter-III of the Act, 1921. Further, the impugned order does not indicate as to whether the District Inspector of Schools has considered the relevant material, which was allegedly furnished while submitting the report under Regulation 39 of of the Regulations under the Act, 1921. Sri Sudeep Kumar has also reiterated that in view of para-3 in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra), an opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the Principal before granting approval to the suspension order. Since the impugned order has been passed in violation of the aforesaid provisions of law, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
20. Sri Sudeep Kumar has lastly submitted that in terms of Regulation 39 read with Regulation 40 of the Regulations under the Act, 1921 for approving the suspension order, issuance of charge sheet is sine qua non and in the present case, charge sheet dated 08.01.2025 has admittedly been served upon the petitioner on 15.01.2025 whereas the suspension order has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024.
21. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 have submitted that since this Court while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No.11061 of 2024, whereby the order of suspension dated 09.11.2024 was challenged has observed in para-30 that once the charges are serious as such the suspension order would squarely be covered by the provisions of Section 16-G (5)(a) of the Act, 1921 and thus, the petitioner has correctly been placed under suspension in terms of the aforesaid provision; the validity of suspension order has been upheld by this Court and the petitioner has not assailed that order by filing appeal before the superior Court. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have, therefore, submitted that since validity of suspension order has been upheld, therefore, the same cannot be assailed. They have also stated that this Court in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra) has held that opportunity of hearing is not required before granting approval of the suspension order, so that ground may not be taken by the petitioner. They have also submitted that the petitioner should participate in the departmental inquiry and direction may be issued to expedite the inquiry. Sri Ashutosh Singh has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in re; Ram Kripal Katiyar Vs. District Inspector of Schools and Ors., reported in MANU/UP/0556/2009, submitting that before granting approval to the suspension order, the District Inspector of Schools is not required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the employee, who has been suspended by the Committee of Management.
22. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 (supra) in para-30 has observed that on account of serious charges, the petitioner has correctly been placed under suspension but in subsequent para i.e. para-31 this Court has categorically observed that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the provisions of Section 16-G (5) (b) of the Act, 1921 that without issuance of charge sheet, the suspension order cannot be passed and this question is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. Therefore, the relevant aspect in this regard may be considered in this matter.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, before adverting the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I would like to refer Section 16-G (5) of the Act, 1921, which reads as under:-
"(5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management -
(a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank ; or
(b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or
(c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial."
24. Regulation 39 (a), (c) & (d) of Chapter-III of the Regulations under the Act, 1921 reads as under:-
"39. (a) The report regarding the suspension of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 16-G shall contain the following particulars and be accompanied by the following document -
(a) the name of the persons suspended along with, particulars of the (posts including grades) held by him since the date of his original appointment till the time of suspension including particulars as to the nature of tenure held at the time of suspension, e.g., temporary, permanent or officiating;
(c) details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended;
(d) certified copies of the complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of which such person was suspended."
25. Para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh (supra), paras-3 & 5 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra), para-8 of Deshraj Singh (supra), paras 6 & 11 of Ram Vijay Singh (supra), para-4 of Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College (supra), para-7 in re; Ram Kripal Katiyar (supra) and para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra) are required to be reproduced herein below.
26. Para-12 in re; Satya Pal Singh (supra) reads as under:-
"12. Under Clause (5) of section 16-G, the Committee of Management could suspend a teacher or a Head of the Institution on certain grounds mentioned therein. The order was forwarded under Clause (6) along with the papers prescribed under Regulation 39 of Chapter-III. These papers were required to be considered and the Inspector was required to apply his mind and was required to give the reasons while according approval or disapproval of the suspension order. In the present case, no reasons have been recorded and, therefore, it is clear, that the Inspector did not apply his mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case. There is another aspect of the matter. The Committee of Management while issuing the suspension order is not required to given an opportunity of hearing to the teacher or the head of the institution. Therefore, at the stage when the order of suspension is being approved and the Inspector is required to apply his mind, it is at that stage, a bare minimum opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the suspended teacher or the Principal, as the case may be. This is the bare minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice, which is required to be given at that time, by the Inspector, while approving or disapproving the suspension order. This is on account of the fact, that the papers forwarded by the Committee of Management under Regulation 39 of Chapter III may contain the reasons, which are only one sided. The other side of the coin should also be considered and that is when the suspended teacher or the Principal would come into the picture. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court, the Inspector is also required to give an opportunity of hearing and hear the version of the suspended teacher or the principal before approving or disapproving the order of suspension. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner."
27. Paragraphs No.3 & 5 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra) read as under:-
"3. When the District Inspector of Schools considers whether to approve an order of suspension under Section 16-G of the Act, it is a well settled principle of law that an opportunity of being heard ought to be granted to the teacher, the Principal and the Management. Moreover, it is also a well settled principle of law that the District Inspector of Schools must pass a reasoned order indicating at least brief reasons for granting his approval or, as the case may be, disapproval to the suspension of a teacher (See: Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools1). In the present case, ex facie the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9 December 2014, which was in question before the learned Single Judge, did not indicate any reasons.
5. We have duly perused the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9 December 2014. The first paragraph of the order contains only a recital of the fact that following the enquiry report, the Management had resolved on 16 November 2014 to place the appellant teacher under suspension and, accordingly, an application was submitted on 4 December 2014 for approval. The second paragraph of the order only contains his conclusion granting approval. Not even brief reasons were indicated in the order, which is totally bereft of any reasons whatsoever. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard, which has been held to be required in the judgment of the Division Bench noted above."
28. Para-8 of Deshraj Singh (supra) reads as under:-
"8.In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati, (2015) 8 SCC 519 as also the observation of the subsequent division bench judgement of this Court in Hari Singh Rajput (supra) and also for the reasons narrated above, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of respondents that an opportunity of hearing would not be required to be given by the Inspector at the stage of grant of approval to the resolution of suspension."
29. Paras 6 & 11 of Ram Vijay Singh (supra) read as under:-
"6. I have also perused the instruction placed by the learned Standing Counsel and it clearly transpires from the pleadings that while the petitioner was placed under suspension and the suspension order was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, it did not contain any of the document like resolution of the Committee of Management, chargesheet and other documents in support thereof.
11. The Committee of Management is directed to supply all requisite documents including the chargesheet dated 23.3.2023 and also all the relevant documents in support of the chargesheet, within two weeks from today. The District Inspector of Schools shall thereafter fix a date giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Committee of Management within ten days and he shall proceed to pass further orders within next 15 days."
30. Para-4 of Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College (supra) reads as under:-
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools cannot be sustained in law. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management S.M.R.K. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, has clearly held that order approving or disapproving resolution of Committee of Management to suspend Principal or teacher must contain reasons and further that absence of reasons would vitiate the order. Admittedly, the District Inspector of Schools did not address himself to relevant papers forwarded alongwith the letter seeking approval of the suspension and declined to accord approval on consideration of the representation made by the respondent-teacher. Section 16-G(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that no head of institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management-(a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal or removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against him; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving criminal turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Sub-section (6) requires that where any head of the institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within a period stipulated therein and it further provides that the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and be accompanied by all relevant documents. Regulation 39 of Chapter III of the Act provides the particulars, which the report regarding suspension of the head of institution or of the teacher to be submitted to the Inspector is to contain and also provides the documents, which are to accompany the report. Sub-section (7) of Section 16 clearly provides that no order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than 60 days. Section 16-G empowers the District Inspector of Schools to revoke an order of suspension after affording opportunity to the management in case he is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings against the head of the institution or the teacher are being delayed for no fault of the concerned teacher. These provisions clearly demonstrate that approval or disapproval of suspension of a teacher including the Principal is not an empty formality. The Inspector is required to address himself to the grounds on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie supporting the charges levelled against the Head of the Institution or the teacher, as the case may be. In case the charges of the nature referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 16-G are prima facie supported by evidence then in that event the Inspector can not withhold approval. On the other hand in case the charges are of trivial nature and are not covered by the charges mentioned in sub-section (5) of Section 16-G and/or there are no prima facie documents or material in support of the charges then the Inspector may disapprove of the suspension of the Principal or the teacher as the case may be. In the instant case the District Inspector of Schools appears to have failed to discharge his statutory duty and given no reasons in support of the order. In the circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was liable to be quashed and the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ petition. In fact the question was not examined by the learned Single Judge in the above perspective and instead the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that while considering the approval or disapproval of suspension order no opportunity of hearing was required to be given by the District Inspector of Schools. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Managing Committee, Dayanand Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools, that at the stage of approval or disapproval of the suspension order the Inspector is not required to afford any opportunity of hearing to the management and that he is only to consider the relevant material referred to in Regulation No. 39 of Chapter III of the Regulations. The said decision, in our opinion, is of no avail. In the instant case, however, as pointed out above, the District Inspector of Schools did not address himself to the charges and the relevant documents and disapproved the suspension order on the basis of the representation made by the teacher concerned. If the suspension is to be disapproved on consideration of any defect pointed out by the concerned teacher by means of a representation, opportunity has to be afforded to the Management before disapproving of the suspension on any such defect in the proceedings."
31. Para-7 in re; Ram Kripal Katiyar (supra) reads as under:-
"7. The employer or the appointing authority before taking decision to initiate proceeding may hold a fact finding inquiry wherein the employee cannot claim right to be heard or to participate. Right of delinquent employee of hearing or affording opportunity arises only from the stage when the charges are framed against him in the disciplinary proceeding and not at any stage anterior to the framing of charges. The order suspending an employee in a pending proceeding or contemplated proceeding is not a quasi-judicial order but an administrative order and, therefore, it is not necessary to obtain explanation of the Government servant before placing him under suspension. At the time of passing of order of suspension the authority is only required to consider that the alleged charge does not appear to be groundless, non-est or mala fide and it requires inquiry, and to hold fair inquiry it is necessary to keep him away from duty. (See Mohd. Ghouse v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0090/1956: AIR 1957 SC 246). We are, therefore, clearly of the view that at the stage of passing of order of suspension in a contemplated or pending departmental proceeding, there is no requirement of any opportunity of hearing to the Government servant or even to call for show cause. Thus, in view of the above legal position, non-affording of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant would not vitiate the impugned order of suspension."
32. Para-20 in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra) reads as under:-
"20. Scope of consideration under Section 16G(7) read with Regulation 39 is very limited as has also been explained in the case of Ram Autar Verma (supra). Thus, a conjoint reading of the afore-noted four judgments reveal that if all the required papers and informations as prescribed under sub-section (7) of Section 16G of the Act, 1921 and Regulation 39 have been submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools to obtain approval of suspension, then opportunity of hearing at the stage of granting approval or disapproval is not required to be afforded to the Management or the employee. But if the employee has submitted any representation or objection against the order of suspension, then the District Inspector of Schools shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Management and the concerned employee while passing the order of approval or disapproval which must contain brief reasons. This view is further supported by the provisions of sub-Section (8) of Section 16G, which specifically provides for an opportunity of hearing at the subsequent stage to the Management by the District Inspector of Schools while considering to revoke an order of suspension passed under sub-section (7) when the Inspector is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings against the head of the Institution or teacher, is being delayed for no fault of the head of the Institution or the teacher."
33. Notably, Regulation 39 (a), (c) & (d) of Chapter-III of the Regulations under the Act, 1921 categorically provides that the report regarding the suspension of the Head of the Institution etc. shall contain relevant particulars and documents including details of all the charges on the basis of which such person was suspended as well as certified copies of the complaints, reports and inquiry report, if any, of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of which such person was suspended. If the aforesaid Regulation is read with Section 16-G (5) of the Act, 1921, no Head of the Institution etc shall be suspended by the Management unless in the opinion of the Management the charges against the employee are so serious entailing major punishment and the District Inspector of Schools must have subjective satisfaction on the charges and such consideration must be reflected in the order approving suspension order. In the present case, admittedly, the charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner on 08.01.2025 but the impugned suspension order has been approved by the impugned order dated 20.12.2024.
34. This Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition of the petitioner whereby the suspension order was assailed has categorically observed in para-31 that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the provisions of Section 16-G (5) (b) of the Act, 1921 that without issuance of charge sheet the suspension order cannot be passed and the said question would be considered at appropriate stage and I think by means of this petition, this fact may be considered.
35. When there was no charge sheet before the District Inspector of Schools, as to how the suspension order could have been approved by him. There may not be any charge sheet at the time of issuance of suspension order dated 09.11.2024 but at the time of approving the suspension order, there must be a charge sheet containing specific charges showing seriousness thereof before the District Inspector of Schools and if there was no charge sheet before the District Inspector of Schools at the time of granting approval of the suspension order, the impugned approval order dated 20.12.2024 would vitiate. This Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 (supra) has approved the suspension order but at that point of time, the order approving the suspension order was not before the Court and that question was left open by the Court in the aforesaid order for simple reason that if the District Inspector of Schools approves the suspension order without going through the seriousness of the charges, which could have been indicated in the charge sheet, the approval of suspension order would vitiate.
36. Though learned Single Judge of this Court in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra) has observed that before approving the suspension order, opportunity of hearing to the employee is not required but it has been observed that the Management shall provide all required papers and informations in terms of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 read with Regulation 39 of the Regulations under the Act, 1921, so the District Inspector of Schools may either approve that suspension order after perusing all those documents and relevant material or disapprove the same. If the order is disapproved, an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the Committee of Management and to the charged employee in terms of Section 16-G (8) of the Act, 1921 but if that order is approved, no such opportunity would be required. However, if the employee has submitted any representation or objection against the order of suspension, then the District Inspector of Schools shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Management as well as the concerned employee while passing order of approval or disapproval, which must contain brief reasons. In the present case, all required papers and informations including charge sheet have not been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, proper application of mind before granting approval of the suspension order was not possible and the petitioner had preferred one detailed representation dated 12.11.2024 to the Director, Madhyamik Education, so the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing by the District Inspector of Schools before granting approval of the suspension order. Therefore, in the light of the observation of the Single Judge in re; C/M Janta Inter College (supra), the petitioner should be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing before granting approval to the suspension order. Had the petitioner been afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, the petitioner would have intimated the District Inspector of Schools that she has not received any charge sheet pursuant to the impugned suspension order dated 09.11.2024.
37. This Court in re; Committee of Management, Maharajganj Inter College (supra) has categorically observed that the provisions of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921 read with Regulation 39 of Chapter-III of the Regulations clearly demonstrate that approval or disapproval of suspension of Head of the Institution etc. is not an empty formality and the District Inspector of Schools is required to address himself to the grounds on which the order of suspension is founded as also the documents, if any, prima facie, supporting the charges levelled against the Head of the Institution.
38. This Court in re; Satya Pal Singh (supra) has categorically held that if the required papers are produced before the District Inspector of Schools, the Inspector was required to apply his mind and was also required to give the reason regarding approval or disapproval of the suspension order. In the case of Satya Pal Singh (supra), no reason was recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, this Court was of the view that the Inspector did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case also, neither all required papers including copy of charge sheet was produced before the District Inspector of Schools nor the District Inspector of Schools has given his subjective satisfaction granting approval to the suspension order. For the aforesaid reason, this Court in re; Satya Pal Singh (supra) quashed the impugned order granting approval to the suspension order.
39. Division Bench of this Court in re; Hari Singh Rajput (supra) reiterated the aforesaid position of law and has also observed that before granting approval to the suspension order, proper opportunity of hearing should be given to the employee. In para-5 of the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench found that not even brief reasons were indicated in the order, which was totally bereft of any reasons whatsoever and in the present case also, the District Inspector of Schools has not given his subjective satisfaction and one letter-notice dated 07.08.2024 has been reiterated, which was subject matter to the earlier writ petition. Not only the above, if the allegations are taken on its face value, which have been considered in the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, prima facie, it appears that the allegations are vague which provides that the petitioner has allegedly tortured some students and had not provided basic amenities and requirements including mid-day meal to the students.
40. This Court in re; Ram Vijay Singh (supra) quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools approving the suspension order for the reason that it did not contain any document like resolution of the Committee of Management, charge sheet and other documents in support thereof. In the present case, admittedly, no charge sheet was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools inasmuch as the charge sheet dated 08.01.2025 was served upon the petitioner on 15.01.2025 i.e. after passing the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 granting approval to the suspension order.
41. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as the same is not being reflected in the impugned order dated 20.12.2024. Admittedly, the charge sheet has not been placed before the District Inspector of Schools for seeking approval of the suspension so in view of settled proposition of law, the District Inspector of Schools had no material before him to form a view so as to approve the suspension order as per procedure prescribed under the Act, 1921. Not only the above, in view of the given facts and circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools was also required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the question of approval of the suspension order.
42. Since the aforesaid error is apparent on the face of record, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur is not liable to be sustained, accordingly, the same is set aside/ quashed.
43. The Committee of Management is directed to supply all requisite documents including copy of the charge sheet dated 08.01.2025, which was served upon the petitioner on 15.01.2025, and also all the relevant documents in support of the charge sheet to the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur, within three weeks from today. The District Inspector of Schools shall thereafter fix date providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Committee of Management within fifteen days and shall proceed to pass a fresh order within further period of fifteen days.
44. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
45. No order as to costs.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 11.04.2025 RBS/-