Allowed

C/M Sukhpura Inter College, Ballia, and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2019WRIA/18040/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Director's order disapproving a school suspension. Citing Tej Narayan Singh, the Court held the Director failed to limit himself to a prima-facie examination and violated natural justice by ignoring specific information sent by the petitioner. The matter was remitted for a fresh order after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.10.2019 was quashed; matter remitted to respondent no. 4 to pass a fresh order after hearing within three weeks.

C/M Sukhpura Inter College, Ballia, and Another… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18040 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sukhpura Inter College, Ballia, And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management challenging the order of disapproval dated 19.10.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia under Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as the Act of '1921'). By the impugned order, the suspension order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the Manager of the Institution suspending the respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8, has been disapproved.

¶7

It has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others 2008 (4) ESC 2301 (DB), paragraph - 14 that the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising the power under Section 16-G(7) has only to examine on prima-facie basis as to whether the charges have any substance and as to whether there is material available in support of the charges. He is not required to enter into any disputed issue as to whether charge would be finally made out or not. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the charged employee.

¶8

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no. 4 observing that the Manager has not mentioned any such point in the charge sheet which may be said to be serious enough to merit dismissal of the concerned teacher.

¶9

The letter for approval containing detail information was sent by the Committee of Management to the respondent no. 4 on 13.9.2019 but regarding it there is no whisper in the impugned order.

¶10

The impugned order lacks consideration in the light of the law laid down in Tej Narayan Singh case (supra) That apart,

¶11

reasonable opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to the Committee of Management.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 19.10.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4 to pass an order afresh in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from today, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8 shall appear before the respondent no. 4 on 22.11.2019 along with a certified copy of this order and thereupon the respondent no. 4 shall fix a short date for hearing of the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within the stipulated period, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the body of this order.

¶13

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.11.2019 Arif

C/M Sukhpura Inter College, Ballia, and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sukhpura Inter College, Ballia, and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Ashutosh Gupta Vs Raj Kumar

Dushyant Kumar Gaur Vs Smt. Sushma Govil Secretary Committee of Management and Anr.

Triloki Nath Srivastava Vs Praveer Kumar Prin. Sec. Nagar Vikas and Anr.

M/S Deepak Enterprises Vs Ravinder Bahadur D.F.O. and Others

Jagmal Singh Vs Rajpal and Others

M/S Pappu Coal Master Vs Ravinder Bahadur D.F.O. and Others