Dr. Tulai Singh Gangwar vs Manager, Committee of Management, Shri Ram Municipal Inter College and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against impugned order suspending the Petitioner from the post of Principal of S. R. M. Inter College, Bilaspur, district Pilibhit and the order of Respondent No. 1 approving the suspension order.

I have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for Petitioner. Learned Counsel has submitted that the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.8.96, Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit only mentions that the Petitioner''s suspension is approved because he is involved in a case under Sections 406 and 409 Indian Penal Code

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the District Inspector of Schools should have considered whether a prima facie case has been made out on merits against the Petitioner and he should not have granted approval of the order of the suspension merely on the ground that the Petitioner is involved in case under Sections 406 and 409 Indian Penal Code I am not in agreement in this contention. Section 16G(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 states" no Head of institution or teacher shall be suspended by the management unless in the opinion of the management...(c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial."

The above provisions make it clear that involvement in a criminal case of moral turpitude is itself a ground for suspension. If the contention of learned Counsel for Petitioner is accepted, it means that the District Inspector of Schools shall work as a trial court and decide whether the Petitioner is guilty of the criminal offence or not. This cannot be done u/s 16G(7). No doubt, if a Head of Institution or teacher is suspended on serious charges without there being any criminal case against him, the District Inspector of Schools has to examine whether there are in fact any serious charges against the Head of institution or teacher but even there the District Inspector of Schools has not to act as a court of appeal and he has only to see whether there are serious charges and there are some materials in support of that charge. As to whether the charges are correct or not will be seen in the enquiry. If the District Inspector of Schools finds that there are some serious charges and there is some material in support of the charge, the proper course is to direct that the enquiry should be completed within a time-bound frame, e.g., within, say, three months. However, if Head of Institution or teacher''s involvement is in a criminal case of moral turpitude, in such a case the District Inspector of Schools has to approve the suspension because the District Inspector of Schools cannot be expected to act as a trial court in a criminal case. All that the D.I.O.S. can see in such a case is whether the person is actually involved in a criminal case of moral turpitude.

On the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order but I direct that if the investigation has not as yet been completed against the Petitioner, it must be completed within three months of production of certified copy of order therefore the police officer concerned and thereafter, the trial must be completed within six months thereafter.

With these observations the petition is finally disposed of.