Committee of Management Yogananand Ram Narain Vaidic Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

A.P. Sahi, J.—These two writ petitions question the validity of the order dated 23.7.2005 as communicated by the Secretary of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Selection Board, Allahabad dated 2.8.2005, whereby the proposal of the termination of Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Principal of Yogananand Ram Narain Vaidic Inter College, Badaun has been turned down and the proposal of termination has been substituted by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. The Committee of Management has filed Writ Petition No. 57071 of 2005 assailing the order to the extent it rejects the proposal of termination and Writ Petition No. 58075 of 2005 has been filed by the delinquent employee Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta challenging the punishment awarded by the Board by stopping of his two increments.

I have heard Sri Radhey Shayam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Management, Sri P. C. Sharma, advocate for the Principal Sri S.C. Gupta and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav for the Secondary Education Board.

Sri Radhey Shyam has urged that once the Board was satisfied that the charges of financial irregularities against the Principal were proved, it was not open to the Board to substitute the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management. On the other hand, Sri P. C. Sharma has urged that the finding recorded by the Board against the Petitioner is wholly unjustified as the Board has failed to consider the material on record, and as such has arrived at a total wrong conclusion. Thus, both the adversaries to the litigation are dissatisfied with the order passed by the Board. It is urged that the Board could not have arrived at a conclusion, which reflects a sort of compromise to some how or the other end the dispute. The Committee contended that once the charges were found to have been proved, there was no justification for awarding a lesser punishment. The employee contends that once the Board was satisfied that the ultimate punishment of termination was unwarranted then the Board ought to have simply disapproved the action and not awarded the punishment on its own.

Alternatively, it was argued that the Board, while reducing the punishment ought to have spelled out the reason for awarding a lesser punishment, the imposition of a lesser punishment could be justified, only upon a finding that the punishment proposed is excessive or unwarranted on the basis of the charges proved.

A perusal of the conclusion drawn indicated that the Board did hold the Petitioner responsible for the lapses on his part, but the Board failed to record a finding supported by reasons as to why a lesser punishment was awarded, than that which was proposed by the Committee of Management.

The same argument would conversely apply in favour of the Respondent/employee, who has also urged that there is no reason disclosed so as to warrant imposition of any penalty in the circumstances indicated in the impugned order.

Accordingly judging from the point of view of the Committee of Management as also the delinquent employee, the impugned order is unsustainable. However, it is relevant to point out that Board does have a power to issue any directions it deems fit in the case, as contained in Regulation 8 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Procedure for approval of Punishment Regulations, 1985. The same has also been interpreted by this Court in the case of P.K. Jain v. U.P. S.C. and Ors. 1997 (2) ESC 847.

Sri Radhey Shayam relied on the case of Managing Committee of Gochar Krishi Inter College and Another Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Others, , to urge, that the Board cannot enter into a fresh enquiry and that the Board cannot modify the punishment proposed by the Management. The aforesaid decision has been considered in the case of Committee of Management, Shri Chameli Devi Khandelwal Girls Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , and after considering the impact of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as of another Division Bench of our Court, it has been held that the Board can scrutinise the evidence in order to see as to whether the charges are established or not, and whether the punishment proposed is commensurate to the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. Thus, the Board has power to assess the proportionality of the punishment proposed, and in view of this, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner stands explained. Accordingly, the Board would be under an obligation to decide the matter keeping in view the ratio of the case of Khandelwal Girls Inter College (supra).

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.7.2005, as communicated through the Secretary of the Board vide letter dated 2.8.2005, is hereby quashed with a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove by recording reasons as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order before the Secretary of the Board.

The writ petitions are allowed with no order as costs.