Partly allowed

Committee of Management Bilhaur Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024WRIA/13725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the recall application rejecting the termination of a delinquent employee after a minor punishment. The petitioner argues the recall application must be reconsidered as the employee's services were terminated. The court set aside the order remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.07.2024 rejected by the District Inspector of Schools was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration hearing both parties within three weeks.

Committee of Management Bilhaur Inter College and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153466

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13725 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Bilhaur Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Dwivedi,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri R.K.Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the recall application of the petitioners and disapproving the suspension of respondent No.3 and the order dated 30.10.2023 by which the approval has not been granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar to the suspension order passed by Committee of Management.

¶8

The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.3 was initially appointed as Officiating Principal in the Institution known as Bilhaur Inter College, Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar. He was put under suspension on 12.06.2014 which culminated in a minor punishment awarded in the year 2015. The petitioner was again put upon suspension on 12.05..2019 which was was disapproved. Thereafter again he was put under suspension on 30.06.2021. This suspension order was followed by a charge-sheet. However, the approval was not granted within 60 days and thereafter the Management proceeded to again put respondent No.3 under suspension on 19.01.2022 and his

¶9

salary was stopped. The approval to the suspension order was not granted by the District Inspector of Schools. A fresh suspension order was passed in the year 2022 which was approved by District Inspector of Schools on 16.06.2022. Respondent No.3 filed Writ A No.10533 of 2022 which was dismissed on 30.08.2022. Against the order of writ Court, a special appeal being Special Appeal No.605 of 2022 was filed by respondent No.3 in which an interim order was granted on 30.09.2022 staying the effect and operation of suspension order dated 21.01.2022 and the approval granted on 16.06.2022. However, the Court observed that the interim order would not preclude the District Inspector of Schools to proceed with the approval proceeding in respect of earlier suspension order. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter proceeded to disapprove the suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2023.

¶10

In between the Management proceeded to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and a proposal for terminating services of respondent No.3 was passed on 22.10.2023 which was communicated to District Inspector of Schools on 26.10.2023. A recall application was moved before District Inspector of Schools on 02.11.2023 disclosing the fact that services of respondent No.3 has been terminated.

¶11

The accounts of the Institution was put under single operation. The said order of District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management by filing writ petition being Writ -A No.8281 of 2024 and the writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court on 11.03.2024. Against the order of writ Court, a special appeal being Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 was preferred which was disposed of on 10.04.2024 with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the recall application dated 01.11.2023. The District Inspector of Schools by the order impugned dated 18.07.2024 has decided the recall application and

¶12

rejected the same.

¶13

Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has not taken into account the fact that the services of respondent No.3 was terminated pursuant to the suspension proceedings initiated on 30.06.2021 and charge-sheet having been served. According to him, the Division Bench while entertaining Special Appeal No.605 of 2022 had observed that that District Inspector of Schools shall proceed with the approval proceedings in respect of the earlier suspension order. According to him, while considering the recall application, he should have taken into note the termination proceedings. He has also relied upon the order passed by coordinate Bench in Writ -A No.4264 of 2024 passed on 19.3.2024 wherein the Committee of Management had approached the writ Court seeking a direction upon District Inspector of Schools who under the new U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 is competent to exercise power under Section 16-G(3)(a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to consider the proposal of the Committee of Management regarding imposition of major penalty.

¶14

The entire thrust of the petitioners' counsel is upon the fact that while considering the recall application, the fact regarding termination of services of respondent No.3 has not been considered which has been raised in the recall application and also a direction was given on 19.03.2024 by the writ Court.

¶15

Sri R.K.Ojha, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are confusing the two issues. According to him, the minor punishment was awarded in the year 2015 in which alleged embezzlement was made by respondent No.3 and the punishment was accorded. After that, respondent No.3 had joined and was working as Officiating Principal.

¶16

According to him, now the Commission has selected him as the Principal and has placed him in the present institution. He is not being able to join the institution due to the resistance by the Management. According to him, the order passed on 19.03.2024 was never disclosed in the writ petition and it has brought through a supplementary affidavit. Moreover, the order has also not been placed before the District Inspector of Schools. According to him, there is no provision for recalling the earlier order disapproving the suspension. However, as the Division Bench had directed for considering the recall application, the District Inspector of Schools had proceeded to consider the same and has rightly passed the order rejecting the recall application and upheld the earlier order dated 30.10.2023.

¶17

I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶18

The short controversy involved in the writ petition is as to the consideration of the fact that services of respondent No.3 has been terminated by the petitioners after the disciplinary inquiry was conducted pursuant to the suspension order dated 30.06.2021 and charge-sheet submitted thereafter.

¶19

The issue as regards the consideration of recall application pursuant to the direction given on 10.04.2024 by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 on the recall application the petitioners have taken stand that the order dated 30.10.2023 needs reconsideration and be recalled as the services of respondent No.3 has already been terminated. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.03.2024 while disposing of Writ-A No.4264 of 2024 has passed the following order :

¶20

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

2. Petitioner-Committee of Management has approached this Court for a

¶22

writ of mandamus to the District Inspector of Schools who under the new U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 is the competent authority to exercise power under Section 16-G (3)(a) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to consider the proposal of the Committee of Management regarding imposition of major penalty upon respondent no.4 who was working as officiating Principal of the institution at the relevant point of time.

¶23

3. It is submitted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposal though has been mooted on 22.10.2023 but till date the District Inspector of Schools has not taken cognizance of the matter as notice has been issued to delinquent employee.

¶24

4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the appropriate direction may be issued to the District Inspector of Schools in the above regard and the matter can be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law within the time framed as may be fixed by this Court.

¶25

5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the District Inspector of Schools to look into and consider the proposal of the Committee of Management dated 22.10.2023 and proceed with the matter to conclude the proceeding under Section 16-G (3)(a) pending before him within the next three months' time from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order but ofcourse after giving notice to the Management and the delinquent employee as well as opportunity of hearing to them.

¶26

6. Needless to add the order to be passed shall be reasoned and speaking one."

¶27

Considering the fact that as there is a direction of Division Bench in Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 and the writ Court in Writ-A No.4264 of 2024, the District Inspector of Schools should have dealt with the matter regarding termination of services pursuant to suspension order dated 30.06.2021 before disposing of the recall application.

¶28

In the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.605 of 2022 had passed the interim order. The inquiry was going on pursuant to the suspension order dated 30.06.2021 and charge-sheet having been issued, the termination took place on 22.10.2023 subsequent to passing of interim order by the Division Bench.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the order passed on recall application on

¶30

18.07.2024 lacks due consideration as to the termination of services of respondent No.3 and the direction of Division Bench in Special Appeal No.361 of 2024 and the order of writ Court in Writ A No.4264 of 2024.

¶31

In view of the said fact, the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar directing him to decide the matter afresh considering the aforesaid facts after hearing both the affected parties, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

Till the decision is taken by District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, with regard to disciplinary proceedings, parties shall maintain status quo as on date.

¶33

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶34

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Kushal

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management Bilhaur Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Bilhaur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hotel Royal Park vs State of Up and 4 Others

Santosh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Harishankar Sharma vs State of Up and 4 Others

Smt Sharda Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Monika Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ishrat Bano vs State of U.P. and 2 Others