Dayanand Hansmukhi Devi Girls Inter College, Kanpur, vs Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad and another

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Respondent No. 2 Sri Ram Tahal was a ClassIV employee of petitioner college. His services were terminated by the Principal on 30.3.1977. Against the said termination order respondent No. 2 filed appeal/representation before The Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Allahabad. R.I.G.S. through order dated 23.4.1982 set aside the termination order and substituted that by an order of stoppage of three annual increments on permanent basis and directed reinstatement. However, it was mentioned that till the date of reinstatement respondent No. 2 would not be entitled to any salary. The college has challenged the said order through this writ petition. Through an interim order dated 2.8.1982, operation of the order passed by R.I.G.S. dated 23.4.1982 was stayed. Stay order was vacated on 2.12.1983 but was again passed on 22.12.1983.

In the impugned order by R.I.G.S. it was mentioned that for minor fault heaviest possible punishment had been granted by the Principal. It was further held that respondent No. 2 had admitted his guilt even though under undisclosed circumstances hence he was entitled to some punishment. In the impugned order dated 23.4.1982 even the nature of allegation against respondent No. 2 and finding thereupon has not been mentioned. In the impugned order the only fault found with the termination order is that in terms of ChapterIII Regulation 35 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, the senior most teacher was not appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the instant case Principal himself conducted the inquiry.

In any case in view of admission of guilt by respondent No. 2 the question of proper opportunity of hearing was irrelevant. Opportunity of hearing is not a strait jacket formula. If someone complains that he has been denied the full opportunity then he shall show that in case full opportunity had been granted what plausible cause he would have shown vide Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India 2007 (4) SCC 54=2007 (3) LLN 6 (SC). The impugned order cannot be sustained as even nature of charge has not been mentioned; only this much has been stated that the charge was minor.

It is not disputed that in view of interim order passed in this writ petition, respondent No. 2 did work. He has also crossed the age of superannuation in December, 2005.

Annexure 12 to the writ petition is a letter dated 21.3.1978 written by respondent No. 2 to the headclerk of the petitioner college. In the said letter he acknowledged receipt of Rs. 153.43 on 20.3.1978. It was also stated that respondent No. 2 was working as Supervisor in Drainage Division, Irrigation Department, Basti. It was requested that the amount payable to respondent No. 2 under Post Office Saving Scheme and money of insurance might also be sent to him. In the said letter it is also mentioned that he regretted the fault committed by him. The said letter is written in a very humble language and regards have been requested to be paid to different teachers and employees of the school. The said letter does not show least annoyance or disagreement of respondent No. 2. Sending of the said letter has been admitted in the counter affidavit by respondent No. 2. However, it has been stated that as temporary measure he was working under some thekedar. Through the said letter it is also quite clear that respondent No. 2 was fully aware of his cessation of employment with the petitioner. Due to the reason that petitioner started working for gain after his removal, he is not entitled to the relief of back salary and pension which are the only possible reliefs which now survive.

The other important circumstance which goes against the respondent No. 2 is that after termination order dated 30.3.1977 he kept quite for about 4 years. A very fantastic excuse for this delay has been given in Annexure13, application dated 23.4.1981 given by respondent No. 2 to R.I.G.S., Allahabad. In the said application it is mentioned that when respondent No. 2 objected to the illegal actions of the Principal against respondent No. 2, the Principal ap1proved three years leave without pay to the respondent No. 2 and asked him to come after three years. It is further mentioned that after the expiry of three years respondent No. 2 sought further extension of one year leave without pay and thereafter when he went to the college to join on 23.4.1981, he was told that his services had been terminated. Firstly, there is no provision of such a long leave without pay for peons of privately managed Government aided college. Secondly no order regarding grant of leave without pay has been brought on record. The only possible reason for this long delay appears to be the joining of other post by respondent No. 2.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.