Partly allowed

C/M of P.N.V. Inter College and Another v. District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2020WRIA/4475/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition challenging an order by the District Inspector of Schools that disapproved a suspension of a lecturer. The court quashed the order and remitted the matter for passing a fresh order after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the teacher, citing a violation of principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.05.2020 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Principal, Commi

C/M of P.N.V. Inter College and Another Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4475 of 2020 Petitioner :- C/M Of P.N.V. Inter College And Another Respondent :- District Inspector Of Schools And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh, Indra Raj Singh, Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Praeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3.

¶7

The petitioners, who are Committee of Management and Manager of P.N.V. Inter College, Chilli (Muskara), Hamirpur (for short, “the institution”), have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur whereby he has disapproved the suspension order of respondent no. 3.

¶8

Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent no. 3 was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi in the institution on 01.07.2017. According to him, respondent no. 3 committed insubordination and misconduct, as a result of which the Principal of the institution on 12.03.2020 wrote to the petitioners to take action against respondent no. 3 on the basis of which the petitioners took out a resolution for suspending respondent no. 3. The said proposal was placed before the District Inspector of Schools, who vide his order dated 14.05.2020 disapproved the said proposal.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh Rajput v. State of U.P. and others, Laws (All) 2015 3 174 , and submitted that respondent no. 1 did not grant any opportunity to the Committee of Management before passing the impugned order nor recorded any reasons with regard to charges levelled against the respondent no. 3. He has placed reliance on Paragraphs-4, 5

¶10

¶11

and 6 of the said judgment which read as under:

¶12

“4. 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 Schools, 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1765). 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.

¶13

5. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management is that the order of the District Inspector of Schools referred to the enquiry which was conducted, and the recording of reasons must be construed having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶14

6. 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.”

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 does not dispute the fact that any opportunity was granted to the petitioners before passing the impugned order.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel has also failed to show that any prior opportunity was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was

¶17

¶18

passed.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be subserved by keeping this writ petition pending when it is admitted case of the parties that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing.

¶20

Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 14.05.2020 passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur, respondent no. 1, to pass a fresh order after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Principal and Committee of Management of the institution as well as respondent no. 3. The said exercise will be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1.

¶21

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.6.2020 SKT/-

C/M of P.N.V. Inter College and Another v. District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M of P.N.V. Inter College and Another v. District Inspector of Schools and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Prasad Vs Bhagirathi and 14 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Jumrat Vs Gufran and 6 Others

Kiran Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Janta Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others