Remanded

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

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022WRIA/19695/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the District Inspector of Schools was obligated to hear the Committee of Management before disapproving a suspension order. While acknowledging the expiry of the sixty-day period for approval, the Court remitted the matter for a fresh order after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remitted to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order after hearing both parties.

C/M Trigunanand Janta Inter College and Another… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19695 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Trigunanand Janta Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineeta Pandey,Chandrachud Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Ardhendu Prakash Mani Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Chandrachud Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the State and, Shri Ardhendu Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3.

¶6

Present petition has been filed by the Committee of the Management of the institution Trigunanand Janta Inter College, Bankata Station Road, District Deoria to challenge the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Deoria disapproving the earlier suspension of the private respondent no.3 vide suspension order dated 08.01.2022.

¶7

Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is, the petitioner Committee of Management was not heard before the impugned order came to be passed. Such fact pleading has been made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. In that regard, instructions were sought from learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

Today, upon instructions, learned Standing Counsel points out, opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. However, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 would contend, the entire action taken by the Committee of Management is malafide. Earlier, the petitioner was suspended on 21.09.2021. That suspension order was revoked on 27.12.2021 by the Authorized Controller. In any case, the Manager of the said institution also passed an order to the same effect on 30.12.2021.

¶9

Thus, it has been submitted, sixty days time period contemplated under Section 16-G(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 expired. Therefore, private respondent no.3 became entitled to reinstatement in service. In any case, he became entitled to full salary payment. Neither full salary payment nor subsistence allowance has been paid to the private respondent. He

¶10

has also relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Committee of Management Vidya Bhawan Inter College Through Its Manager and Ram Shanker Shukla Son of Subedar Shukla, Manager to the Committee of Management of Vidya Bhawan Inter College vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha, 2006 (7) ADJ 440 .

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it is seen, the writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management and not the delinquent employee/respondent no.3. The relief being claimed in the present petition has to be confined to the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by the DIOS Deoria without affording opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner.

¶12

While it is true that the suspension lapses on expiry of sixty days and employee becomes entitled to reinstatement and payment of full salary upon expiry of that period and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria & Ors., (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460 , the DIOS retains his jurisdiction to consider the grant of approval to the suspension order. If such approval is granted, consequentially, the status of the delinquent would revert to that of the suspended employee, from that date.

¶13

In the present case, while the respondents contend, earlier, suspension has been revoked, the petitioner Committee of Management claims further suspension order dated 08.01.2022. Whether such order was sustainable is not for the Court to consider. The same may remain a matter to be examined by the DIOS on the strength of the record. Therefore, no conclusion is required to be drawn by this Court in the present proceedings as to the legality or the continuance of the suspension order. Insofar as it does appear that the private respondent no.3 had filed objection to the approval of the suspension sought by the present petitioner Committee of Management, the DIOS was obligated to give limited opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

¶14

In view of the above, the impugned order may not be sustained. Payment of full salary and/or subsistence allowance are consequences to the suspension. If not approved within 60 days, the private respondent may not be stopped to claim payment of full salary during pendency of approval proceedings.

¶15

Seen in that light, sixty days time period had expired. Therefore, leaving it open to the private respondent to claim full salary payment during pendency of the proceedings for approval, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Deoria to pass a fresh order after hearing both parties.

¶16

Reliance placed by learned counsel for the private respondent on Committee of Management Vidya Bhawan Inter College (supra) is distinguished inasmuch as it has not been laid down by way of a proposition of law in that case that the proceedings for approval would lapse upon expiry of sixty days. Also, it may be noted, in that case, it was not an issue whether the Committee of Management had been heard before the order of suspension that had been passed by the DIOS.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 Prakhar

¶19

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.15 12:11:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Trigunanand Janta Inter College and Another v. State of U P 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Namwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Deep Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another