AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively.
Writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage as contemplated under High Court Rules since all the respondents are represented and have no objection.
This is a petition challenging two orders dated 24.4.1999 and 28.6.1999 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition) whereby the District Inspector of Schools revoked the suspension order passed by the Management on the ground that petitioner''s Management did not submit relevant papers within time stipulated under law before District Inspector of Schools under provision of Section 16G (1) of the Act and Chapter 3. Regulation 39 of the Regulations framed under the Act. The District Inspector of Schools, however, observed that no action of punishment could be initiated against any member of staff of the college since the authority of Committee of Management of the college was subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 3628 of 1999.
It is admitted at the bar that in the said writ petition, there is no interim order restraining Management to take disciplinary action against any member of its staff. The District Inspector of Schools is thus not justified to hold that Management was not entitled to Initiate disciplinary action (only on the ground that writ petition was pending).
In case, Management falls to submit requisite document within stipulated time under Chapter III. Regulation 39 framed under the Act, order of suspension will automatically come to an end and cannot be operative per force of law. It does not mean that Management cannot proceed with disciplinary proceedings. Management has right to initiate and continue with disciplinary proceeding. If so advised, even in absence of suspension. It is not necessary for disciplinary action that "employee" should be under suspension.
Management cannot treat its Principal (Prem Narain Singh) as suspended unless District Inspector of Schools approves proposal of suspension.
Other impugned order dated 29th June, 1999 shows that the concerned District Inspector of Schools has resorted to single operation in exercise of power conferred under U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teacher and other Employee) Act, 1971. Impugned order shows that time (to submit reply to notice dated 1.6.1999 under Payment of Salaries Act) has expired and the District Inspector of Schools, thus proceeded to pass the said order. The tenor of the order shows that District Inspector of Schools laboured under an impression that he was constrained to resort to power of single operation under Payment of Salaries Act. 1971. There is. however, no such compulsion on District Inspector of Schools nor he automatically acquired right to resort to single operation on expiry of notice period.
For exercising power of single operation, condition precedent is that District Inspector of Schools must record a finding to the effect that Committee of Management is persistently committing default In making payment of salary.
In view of the above, I quash the Impugned order dated 20th June, 1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). It is, however, made clear that District Inspector of Schools may take recourse to its power under Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 only in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that disciplinary inquiry will be concluded expeditiously provided delinquent teacher cooperates. Conditional assurance to the Court cannot be appreciated inasmuch as Management is free to proceed with disciplinary inquiry since it is not dependent upon the cooperation of the delinquent official. If delinquent employee avoids and/or deliberately chooses not to participate in the disciplinary enquiry Inspite of notice and opportunity to him. Management can always proceed and take action in accordance with law.
This Court declines to interfere with order dated 24th April, 1999 with the observation that Management may proceed with disciplinary inquiry if so advised.
Writ petition partly allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.