C/M Harchand Mal Jain Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18722 of 2023 Petitioner :- C/M Harchand Mal Jain Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Pandey,Pranvesh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Vinod Kumar Singh Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶1Heard Shri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Samarth Singh, advocate (A/S0663/2017) holding brief of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶2Learned counsel for the parties have made a statement at bar that they do not propose to file any response and decide the matter at the fresh stage.

¶3The case of the writ petitioner is that it is an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 stands applicable.

¶4As per the writ petitioner, the fourth respondent is a class-IV employee of the institution in question owing to certain acts and omissions, he was placed under suspension on 01.06.2023 against which the fourth respondent preferred an application before the officiating principal of the writ petitioner-institution for revocation of the suspension order. In the meantime, a chargesheet is stated to have been served upon the fourth respondent, consequent to the constitution of an inquiry committee. The charge sheet dated

13.06.2023 contained as many as eight charges. According to the writ petitioner, though the charges were being enquired by the inquiry committee, in the meantime, an order is stated to have been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, third respondent on 21.08.2023 whereby the suspension of the fourth respondent has been disapproved.

¶5Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition.

¶6Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat, third respondent is per se illegal as the same touches on the merit of the matter. He submits that when the issue is relatable to approval/disapproval of the suspension then the District Inspector of Schools could not have gone into the merits of the matter. He while inviting the attention towards page 48 of the writ petition submits that the words which are finding presence in the order is to the effect that with respect to the charges are liable to be rejected, they are not approved itself shows the matter be decided on merits and the contention has been raised which is permissible under law.

¶7Learned counsel for the writ petitioner thus submits that the order in question be set aside and the matter be remitted back in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2008

(7) ADJ 108.

¶8Shri Samarth Singh, advocate holding brief of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh on the other hand submits that might be in some places, observations are made on merits but they could not be construed to such an extent to make the order vulnerable and vitiated, particularly, the import and impact of the order is to be seen. He further submits that while according disapproval, the District Inspector of Schools has made a superficial survey over the charges and thereafter proceeded to pass an order finding that the present case is not a case for continuance of the suspension of the fourth respondent.

¶9Shri Samarth Singh, additionally, it is being sought to be argued that once the 60 days have lapsed then the fourth respondent is entitled to reinstatement and payment of salary.

¶10Shri Shailendra Singh, though supports the contention of Shri Samarth Singh, however, he submits that probably the District Inspector of Schools while disapproving the suspension had gone into the merits which was not permissible under law.

¶11I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶12The facts of the case are not in dispute, however, for the sake of clarity, the relief extract of the order dated 21.08.2023 of the District Inspector of Schools is quoted hereinunder: "

ससथथपधथनथचथररककदथरथशशवकदपथलसससहपररचथरकककऊपरलगथरकगरकआररपरमम

उललसखतउपससथलतककसमबनधममससथथममकथररत19

सकवथकलमरयकककथनसकसपषहह लक,

शशवकदपथलसससहलनरनतरलवदथलरममउपससथतहरकरअपनशपदशरदथलरतवलनवरहनकर

रहकहह।शशवकदपथलसससहदथरथससथथककदफतरशशशरथमपथलसससहकरअभदवरवहथरलकरक

जथनकसमबनधममसपषलकरथहहशशरथमपथलसससहमकरकघरलदनथसक25.03.2023

करनहहआरक

थकतरमकरकदथरथउनककसथथअभदतथलकरथजथनथसमभवनहहहहतथथशशरथमपथलसससहकक

लशकथरतककसमबनधममशशरथमपथलसससहककपपवरअलभकथनसजसममउनककदथरथफजर

पतरथवकदनपसतत लकरकजथनकककसवशककलतककगरशहहकथसथकरसलसगलकरथगरथहह।सजससक

शशरथमपथलसससहककसतरतथपरससदकहककससथलतबनतशहह।

पकरणममसमबसनधतकमरचथरशककशरथबपशनकसमबनधशलशकथरतलबनदतककसमबनधममससथथ

पधथनथचथररककपपवरपतलदनथसक20.03.2021

ककदथरथसमबसनधतकमरचथरशकरशरथबपशनककक

लशकथरतलमथरथएवसदकषपपवरससदलकरथगरथहह।सजसकथरणआररपसवशकथरलकरकजथनकररगर

नहहहह।शशवकदपथलसससहककसकवथपसजकथककसमबनधममसमबसनधतकमरचथरशनकअपनशसकवथ

पसजकथलवदथलरममकथररतशशओमसससहपररचथरकककपतलदनथसक03.07.2023 मम

उललसखतबरथनककआधथरपरउकआररपलनरसतलकरकजथनकररगरहह।

समबसनधतकमरचथरशनकअपनकलचलकतसथसमबसनधतलशकथरतककसमबनधममसपषलकरथहहलक

वहउचचरकचथपसकगससतथथसजसकथरणउसनकमथनससकररगकथइलथजमकरठकक

असपतथलममकरथरथगरथथथ,

सजसककअवसधममलनरमथनतसथरससथथपधथनथचथररसकअसजरत

अवकथशसवशककतकरथरथगरथहह।सजसककअनतगरतआररपलवनदतओसककसतरतथलनषपभथवश

हरनकररगरहह।समबसनधतकमरचथरशनकससथथपधथनथचथररकरअपमथलनतकरनकहकततअपनकपत

लदनथसक03.06.2023

पसजशककतडथकसकपथपकरथरकजथनकककसमबनधममसपषलकरथहहलक,

समबसनधतकमरचथरशनकउकपतलदनथसक03.06.2023

ककदथरथअपनकऊपरलगथरकगरकआररपर

करहटथनकएवसअपनकलनलमबनकरसमथपलकरकजथनककथअनतररधससथथपधथनथचथररसकलकरथ।

ससथथपधथनथचथररदथरथसमबसनधतकमरचथरशकरपथपकरथरकगरकसमरणपतलदनथसक

31.03.2023

लकपपवरककपतजरससथथपधथनथचथररदथरथसमबसनधतकमरचथरशकरपथपकरथरथ

गरथहहउसककमथसगबथर-

बथरलकरकजथनकककउपरथनतभशउकपतसमबसनधतकमरचथरशकर

अदतनपथपनहहकरथरथगरथहहसजससकपकरणममलगथरकगरकआररपयककसतरतथससलदगध

पतशतहरतशहह। लनणर

पकरणममपथपआररपपतककलबनदतवथरउतरथलकखककअवलरकनककउपरथनतउकसमशकथकक

आधथरपरशशवकदपथलसससहदथरथपसतत पतरथवकदनलदनथसक03.07.2023

करलनसतथररत

करतकहहरकशशवकदपथलसससहपररचथरककरसवकतनबहथलकरतकहहरकससथथपधथनथचथररकर

लनदरलशतलकरथजथतथहहलकसमबसनधतकमरचथरशकरलनरलमतउपससथलतलवदथलरकक

उपससथलतपसजकथममकरवथनथसतलनलशतकरम,

तथथपपवरककउपससथलतकरमथनरकरम।"

¶13Perusal of the aforesaid captioned extract itself goes to show that observations on merit have been accorded which in view of the law laid down in the case of Tej Narayan Singh (supra) is not permissible under law, consequently the order dated 21.08.2023 is set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat to pass fresh order, legal submission shall follow. The said exercise is undertaken and concluded within a period of six weeks from the presentation of the certified copy of this order, say, by 05.01.2024.

¶14Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 4.12.2023 A. Prajapati High Court of Judicature at Allahabad