Girish Chandra vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Sri. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ramesh Narain Pandey for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. There is hardly any role for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to play in the present dispute at this stage and, therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to grant any time to the said respondents to file any counter-affidavit.

Sri. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, submits that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage and the matter can be disposed of on the basis of the facts that are already on record.

In view of the consent of all the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage.

The petitioner is a Teacher of Shri. Digamber Jain Inter College, Agra, which is a minority institution protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he has been terminated from his services by the impugned order dated 15.4.2013, which is under challenge before this Court. The ground for termination is that the petitioner was guilty of the charges referred to in the charge-sheet dated 28.2.2013 and since the petitioner failed to cooperate in the inquiry and failed to respond to the show-cause notice in accordance with law, the petitioner was removed from service.

The reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was also not found satisfactory.

Sri. Ashok Khare contends that the impugned order is violative of the procedure prescribed under Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and not only this, the charges are absolutely frivolous and the inquiry has proceeded without giving notice to the petitioner. He further contends that none of the documents were provided which was demanded by him. On the contrary a reply was given by the Committee that the documents were not required as they were not necessary for the purpose of the reply. He, therefore, submits that the respondent -- Committee of Management has proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner without complying with the principles of natural justice and in clear violation of the provisions aforesaid. He has relied upon on three decisions of this Court in the case of Har Dev Singh Vs. Committee of Management D.B. Santokh Singh Khalsa Inter College and Another, , the decision in the case of Tariq Ayyub v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 21.10.2010 and the third decision in the case of Smt. Abha Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others, , to urge that even in minority institutions where regulations have been violated, this Court can exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the order of termination.

Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri. Pandey for the Management, submits that this is a case where the charges are serious enough that warrant the dismissal of the petitioner. The charges were inquired into in accordance with the procedure prescribed but the petitioner failed to co-operate with the inquiry and, therefore, the impugned order is justified. He submits that; the reply, which was given by the petitioner, was absolutely unsatisfactory and not only this, his conduct in the institution is such that it is not desirable to continue him further in service. Sri Pandey, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not require any interference and the findings of fact recorded cannot be a subject-matter of appeal before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the decisions that have been cited at the bar, the interference in service matters relating to employees of minority institutions is limited to the extent of violation of procedure prescribed under the Regulations, provided they are regulatory in nature, and do not impinge upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, permits such interference and in the instant case the stand taken by the petitioner is that the inquiry is vitiated for non-compliance of Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter III of the 1921 Act.

I have perused the impugned order and the opening part thereof clearly recites the manner in which the Management has proceeded to consider the non-co-operation of the petitioner as one of the grounds for proceeding to pass the termination order. Regulation 37 of Chapter III categorically requires that after the inquiry is concluded, the report of the Enquiry Officer shall be considered by the Committee of Management and then the Committee shall offer an opportunity to the delinquent employee to give his explanation and hear him before passing the order of termination. There is no material discussed by the District Inspector of Schools to enable this Court to infer that the Committee had ever complied with the said provision. The order impugned dated 15.4.2013 is clearly deficient on this aspect. Learned counsel for the respondent -- Committee of Management, therefore, could not support the order on this ground. The impugned order, therefore, being in violation of Regulation 37 of Chapter-Ill of 1921 Act cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. It shall be open to the Committee of Management to proceed to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the regulations aforesaid and in the light of the judgments referred to herein above.