Committee of Management of Rashtriya Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30187

Court No. - 10

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2706 of 2025

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Of Rashtriya Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain,Srivats Narain Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.

¶7

This is second round of litigation. The petitioners Committee of Management of Rashtriya Inter College, Sirsi Baraipar, Jaunpur has approached this Court earlier by way of filing a Writ A No. 474/2025 wherein order of disapproval of private respondent-3, suspension was under challenge. Said writ petition was allowed with directions by order dated 17.01.2025 :-

¶8

“1. Heard Mr. Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Mr. Manoj Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.

¶9

The Committee Of Management Rashtriya Inter College, Sirsi, Baraipar District Jaunpur Through Its Manager, is before this Court. They are aggrieved by an order dated 23.12.2024 whereby the suspension of respondent no. 3, dated 5.12.2024/6.12.2024 was unapproved on the ground that suspension order was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that

¶11

it was incumbent upon the DIOS Janpur, to pass a reasoned order and in case the suspension was contrary to the above referred provisions, the same may also be mentioned in the impugned order. Otherwise also, neither the petitioners nor the respondent no. 3 was heard before the impugned order was passed. He places reliance on a judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 169 of 2015 (Hari Singh Rajput Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2015 (3) ADJ 654), wherein there is a reference that in such orders, principle of natural justice be complied and reasons may also be assigned.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent is not able to satisfy this Court that impugned order, dated 23.12.2024, is passed in accordance with law since it does not mention any reason, except an averment that suspension order was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 submits that the charge-sheet, in question, is itself legally defective, however, he fairly submits that he has no instructions whether said respondent has send any reply to the charge-sheet or not. He prays that without interfering with the impugned order, an order may be passed that the inquiry be concluded, in accordance with law, after taking note of the reply of respondent no. 3. He further submits that reply, if still not filed, will be filed within one week.

¶14

I have considered the above submissions and perused the above referred judgement of Hari Singh Rajput (Supra). For reference the impugned order, dated 23.12.2024, is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶15

" उपरक र ववषरक अपनन पतततक /38-42/ 2024-25 वदनततक 09.12.2024 कन सतथ सतलग पबतध सवमवत कन पसततव वदनततक 05.12.2024 कतअवललकनकरन, जजसकन दतरतअपननववदतलरकन शश अरववनदकरमतरजसतहपवकतनतगररकशतसकलवनलममबतकरअनरमलदनहनतर पततवलशपनवषतककगरशहह।आपदतरतशशअरववनदकरमतरजसतहपवकत नतगररक शतस कत वकरत गरत वनलमबन उतर पदनश मतधरवमक वशकत अजधवनरम 1921 ममदशगरशवरवसथतकन ववपररतवकरतगरतहह।आप दतरतवकरतगरतअनरमलदनबलहशनआधतरहशनहलननकन कतरणवकरतगरत वनलमबन पसततव वदनततक 05.12.2024 कल अनतनरमलवदत वकरत जततत हह।"

¶16

7. The	aforesaid impugned order does not
describe	any reasons as to how the provisions of
Uttar Pr	adesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
was not	followed as well as it appears that no
opportun	ity was granted to either of the
parties.	Therefore, the impugned order, in its
present	form, does not legally survives and is
accordin	gly set aside and this writ petition is
disposed	that in case, despite cooperation of
the del	inquent i.e. respondent no. 3, the
inquiry	is not concluded after considering the
reply an	d other material within six weeks, the
suspensi	on order shall be deemed revoked. ”

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in aforesaid circumstances, the D.I.O.S. has no authority left so far as present matter is concerned either to approve or disapprove the suspension order since above referred order is a conditional order, still by impugned orders dated 30.01.2025 and 15.02.2025, suspension of concerned respondent-3 by another order was disapproved. Its compliance was sought.

¶18

Aforesaid order is now being confronted to learned counsel for State-respondents, however, he fairly submits that impugned orders were unwarranted.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that it is the petitioners who have invited this order and they are delaying the process of inquiry so much as that Committee of Management has now submitted a supplementary charge-sheet which appears to be on recent allegations which do not have any connection with earlier charge sheet. He further submits that reply to first charge sheet has already been submitted.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Committee of Management will conclude the inquiry so far as first charge sheet is concerned within 2 weeks and so far as supplementary charge sheet is concerned, an opportunity may be granted to initiate proceedings, if so warrant.

¶21

In view of above submissions, this Court is of

¶22

considered opinion that in the light of order passed by this Court, concerned D.I.O.S. has no authority to pass any order so far as approval or disapproval of suspension order of respondent-3 is concerned in pursuance of said order, if feels so warrant only, as such, he has exceeded his jurisdiction in present case.

¶23

Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.01.2025 as well as consequential order dated 15.02.2025 are set aside and D.I.O.S. concerned is put on caution.

¶24

Petitioners are directed to conclude the inquiry within 3 weeks from today so far as first charge sheet is concerned since its reply has already been submitted, therefore, period mentioned in aforesaid order dated 17.01.2025 is extended up to 3 weeks from today.

¶25

However, this order will not come in the way that if after conclusion of inquiry on first charge sheet, petitioners want to initiate another inquiry in terms of supplementary charge sheet.

¶26

This writ petition is disposed of with above observations/directions.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Sinha_N.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km Anjalina Peter vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Bahadur and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Staya Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others