Gulab Chand Pandey vs Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi and others

C.S.P. Singh, J.

The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher, Physical Training on January 3, 1955 in the Vindhya Vidyapith Higher Secondary School, Vindhyachal, district Mirzapur. It is averred in the petition that he was initially appointed in January 1955 and thereafter made permanent in 1959. On June 23, 1972 a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to explain a number of charges. The chargesheet directed the petitioner to submit an explanation to the Enquiry Committee. It is not necessary to state what happened at the enquiry, for we are of the view that the Enquiry Committee constituted to enquire into the charges against the petitioner could not do so, in view of Regulation 35 framed under the Intermediate Education Act. After the Enquiry Committee had completed its enquiry the matter went before the District Inspector of Schools for approval. Approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools and the petitioner was dismissed from service on November 16, 1973. He thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education but that appeal failed. Counsel for the petitioner contended on the strength of a decision given in the case of Rajeshwar Prasad Dixit v. Managing Committee of Dr. H. R. Arya Inter College 1971 A.L.J. 896 that the provisions of Regulation 35 were mandatory, and inasmuch as the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher, the enquiry should have been conducted by either the Head Master, the Principal or the Manager, and not by a subcommittee. Regulation 35 runs as under:

"On receipt of a complaint or an adverse of report of facts of a serious nature, the Committee may in the case of teachers appoint the Head Master or Principal or Manager as the enquiry officer (or the Manager may himself set up the enquiry if such power has been delegated to him by the Committee under rules) and in the case of the Head Master or Principal, a small subcommittee, with instructions to submit the report as expeditiously as possible."

A perusal of this regulation discloses that so far as the teachers are concerned, the enquiry may be conducted by the Head Master or Principal or Manager. The Committee of Management has to choose which of these officers are to conduct the inquiry. So far as a subcommittee is concered, that can enquire into case a of only Head Masters, or Principals and not those of teachers. In the case of Rajeshwar Prasad Dixit v. Managing Committee of Dr. Hari Ram Arya Inter College 1971 A.L.J. 896 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the provisions of Regulation 35 are mandatory. As at present advised, we are not inclined to take a different view. This being so, enquiry in the present case was conducted by a body which had no jurisdiction to do so and, as such, the entire enquiry and the findings given by it are vitiatel. As the findings given by the Enquiry Committee are vitiated and honest, the approval given by the District Inspector of Schools and the subsequent order of the Deputy Director of Education dismissing the appeal are of no consequence for all that they did was to confirm a void proceeding.

Counsel for the petitioner also urged that as the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is bad, s writ of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to pay his salary. We do not think that it is appropriate to issue such an order in these proceedings. The proper remedy of the petitioner for his salary is by way of filing a suit or approaching the proper authorities, under the special statutes governing payment of salary to teachers.

The petition is accordingly partly allowed, and the impugned order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools and the order of the Deputy Director of Education dismissing the appeal are quashed. It will, however, be open to the Management to conduct a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner in accordance with Regulation 35 and proceed against him in accordance with Jaw. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of this petition.