Allowed

C/M Bapu Inter College v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018WRIA/5079/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a writ petition quashing an imputation order by the District Inspector of Schools which refused to approve suspension for a teacher without considering the nature of serious charges. The court directed the authority to pass a fresh order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.1.2018 quashed. Respondent no.2 directed to pass fresh order within four weeks.

C/M Bapu Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5079 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Bapu Inter College Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Jain Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶5

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 22.1.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 2, whereby he has refused to accord approval to the suspension of the petitioner from service.

¶6

The arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that perusal of the charges against the respondent shows that there are 16 serious charges levelled against the respondent no.3 warranting major punishment. While passing the impugned order respondent no.2 has not even prima facie considered the nature of charges nor has recorded any finding and has simply stated that charges are such which may not call for any major punishment. He has further concluded that charges did not appear to be justified and legal and there are no such charges which may warrant dismissal of the respondent no.3 from the service.

¶7

¶8

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order being nonspeaking and cryptic requires to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is in accordance with law. He has only recorded his prima facie satisfaction that suspension order is not justified. He has not recorded the findings on merit which could prejudice the case of respondent no.3, in the disciplinary inquiry to be conducted in future therefore, he has rightly not gone into the merits of the allegations.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Bhusan Misra Vs. District Inspector of Schools, 1995(2) CLR, 857 . He has relied upon paragraphs 3 and 6 to the judgement are as follows:-

¶11

"3. According to sub-section (7) no order of suspension shall "remain in force for more than sixty days" unless approved in writing by the Inspector. 'In force 'means' in operation'. A statutory enactment or an order does not lapse merely because it has not come or brought into force. The only effect of an order, which is not is force is that it is ineffective and inoperative. But such an order is not obliterated and continues to exist though ineffective. Similarly when the order, which was in force, has ceased to be operative due to supervising event, will come into force again and will become effective after the infirmity caused by supervening event is removed. In view of the provisions of sub-section (7), an order of suspension of Head or a teacher of an Institution shall remain in force or a period of sixty days from the date of such order even if it is not approved in writing by the Inspector but in the absence of the approval by the Inspector such an order will cease to operate an expiry of sixty days from the date of the

¶12

¶13

order, although it will continue to exist though inoperative. But if the order of suspension is approved even after the expiry of sixty days, it will come into force again and will become effective immediately on such approval. Any other interpretation will lead to serious consequences. Inaction on the part of the Inspector either deliberate or otherwise may frustrate the object of the provision itself.

¶14

6.Our answers so the questions referred as under :

¶15

(1) An order of suspension of the Head or a teacher of an institution does not lapse even if not approved by the Inspector within sixty days from the date of such order and it merely ceases to operate and becomes effective again after it is approved by the Inspectors.

¶16

(2) The writ petition filed before this Court under article 226 of the constitution of india against an order of D. I. O. S. passed under Section 16-G (7) of the Act does not become infructuous after the; expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of suspension and this Court has fall power to pass appropriate order and issues appropriate direction is such matter.

¶17

Answered accordingly."

¶18

He has further relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tej Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ESC 2301 (D.B.) .He has relied upon paragraphs 5,6, and 7, which are as follows:-

¶19

"5. However, in the facts of the present case since decision to suspend the Principal has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, it logically follows that there is no order in writing by the District Inspector of Schools approving the order of suspension till date. Consequently, the suspension order has lost its life by operation of law.

¶20

6. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the learned Single Judge staying operation of the order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the suspension virtually has the effect negating the provision of section 16-g(7) and restoring an order, which has already lost its life, by an interim order.

¶21

¶22

7. In our opinion the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2.7.2007 is legally not justified in the facts of the case inasmuch as the Principal/teacher after expiry of sixty days from the date of suspension becomes entitled to be reinstated, unless suspension is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Bhushan Misra (supra)."

¶23

After considering the rivals submission it is clear that basis of the suspension of the respondent no. 3 were 16 charges mentioned in the suspension order dated 11.12.2017 as follows:-

¶24

1a& l= 2014&15 esa ih0 Vh0 ,0 ls lEcfU/kr /kujkf'k dk nq:i;ksx ,oa fu;efo:} dk;Zdkfj.kh dk xBuA

¶25

2& 'kkluns'k fuxZr gksus ,oa izcU/kd ds vkns'k ds ckn Hkh vkns'k dh vogsyuk dj l= 2014&15 esa Qhl dh iqujko`fRr gksus ij Qhl fo|kfFkZ;ks dks okil u djukA

¶26

3& l= 2017&17 esa Nk=kvksa dk izos'k fu;efo:} jksdukA

¶27

4& jktkKk ds fo:} vDVwcj ekg 2017 esa euekus <ax ls fo|ky; 10 cts ls 4 cts rd lapkfyr djukA

¶28

5& pgsrs fyfid dks ekg esa fu;e fo:} 10&11 fnuksa dks dk;kZy; dk;Z fn[kk dj ?kj cSBkukA

¶29

6& f'k{kdksa dk izksUur@p;u osrueku ,oa LFkkukUrj.k i=koyh dks izcU/kd dh mis{kk dj ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr djukA

¶30

7& ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ,oa izoDrk gsrq inksUur f'k{kd ls voS/k olwyh dj izcU/kd }kjk fuxZr fu;qfDr i= dk lanHkZ xzg.k fd;s fcuk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k

¶31

¶32

djkukA

¶33

8& ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ,oa izcU/kd ds vkns'kkas dh vogsyuk djukA

¶34

9& [ksy en dk nq:i;ksxA

¶35

10& ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd xksj[kiqj dh fujh{k.k vk[;k fnukad 04-09-2014 ds vuqlkj vkids fo:} ik;h x;h vfu;ferrk,aA

¶36

11& ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd xksj[kiqj dh fujh{k.k vk[;k fnukad 05-08-2017 ds vuqlkj vkids fo:} ik;h x;h vfu;ferrk,aA

¶37

12& tqykbZ 2014 esa Nk=ksa ls ladfyr 'kqYd fu;ekuqlkj le;c) cSad [kkrksa es u tek dj futh mi;ksx esa ykukA

¶38

13& l= 2014&15 esa d{kk 6]7]8 ls yh x;h izfr Nk= 500 ¼ikap lkS½ :i;k voS/k 'kqYd dks esjs fyf[kr vkns'k ds ckn Hkh Nk=ksa dks okil u djukA

¶39

14& ifjpkyd }kjk izcU/kd }kjk izsf"kr i=ksa dks fjlho u djuk ,oa fjlhfoax jftLVj dks ifjpkyd dks /kedk dj vius ikl j[k ysukA

¶40

15& x`g ijh{kk ds uke ij d{kk 10 ,oa d{kk 12 ds Nk=ksa ls ijh{kk 'kqYd nks ckj ysukA

¶41

16& dEI;wVj vUoVZj cSVjh ,oa iqjkuk buoVZj ?kj mBk ys tkukA

¶42

Respondent no.2 has not applied his mind to the

¶43

¶44

charges while passing the order. The finding recorded that none of the charges can entail major punishment, is absolutely incorrect as clear from the charges aforesaid.It is true that respondent no. 2 was not required to go into the merits of the charges, however, this does not mean that respondnet no. 2 should not even have considered the charges prima facie, while passing the impugned order disapproving the suspension order passed by the respondent no.3.

¶45

In view of the above facts and the legal position the impugned order dated 22.1.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur being an order passed without placing reliance of the material on record is hereby quashsed.The respondent no.2 is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

¶46

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that he is working and may be permitted to work after passing of the order by the respondent no.2 and in view of the observations of this court in paragraph-7 of the judgment in Tej Narain Singh(supra) he is entitled to be protected. It is observed that petitioner shall proceed in accordance with law as laid down in the case of Tej Narain Singh(Supra) .

¶47

¶48

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent stated above.

¶49

Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Atul kr. sri.

C/M Bapu Inter College v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Bapu Inter College v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Another

Shaukat Ali Kadri Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Lal Vs Lekhadhikari and Others

Head Constable 43753 Satya Deo Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravi Kumar Vs District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others