Ram Kishore Pandey vs State of U.P. and others

Arun Tandon, J.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4.

A statement has been made on behalf of the Counsel for the respondents that the writ petition itself may be disposed of in terms of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, without calling for the counter affidavit.

This writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah/Auraiya dated 27.7.2006 whereby, in exercise of powers under Section 16G (7) of Intermediate Education Act, the District Inspector of Schools has granted approval to the suspension effected against the petitioner, who was working as Principal of the Institution. The order dated 27.7.2006 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the District Inspector of Schools before passing the impugned order.

With reference to charges, as have been noticed in the chargesheet, Counsel for the petitioner submits that if opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools, he would have explained that the charges as framed have no leg to stand and even otherwise are based on nonconsideration of certain developments which have taken place after the earlier report submitted before the District Magistrate.

Counsel for the respondent contended that no opportunity of hearing is contemplated under Section 16G (7) nor any prejudice has been shown by the petitioner, on the basis whereof he can claim a right of opportunity of hearing.

He contention raised on behalf of the parties may be examined by the Court with reference to the charges, as have been noticed in the chargesheet dated 25.4.2006, which has been enclosed as Annexure11 to the writ petition.

Charge No. 1 pertains to embezzlement of Rs. 17,000/ said to be the money realized through agricultural income and which according to charge was required to be deposited in the college fund but same have been embezzled by the petitioner.

In respect of the said charge, Counsel for the petitioner points out that money in fact has been deposited in the account of the Principal maintained for the said purpose in a nationalized bank and therefore, the charge of embezzlement is totally unfounded. It is further pointed out that although initially the District Magistrate got a first information report lodged against the petitioner, however, on an application being made by the petitioner, he has directed a fresh enquiry, which is still in progress. Therefore, the earlier order of the District Magistrate looses all significance because of the subsequent order. Referenceparagraph 15 of the writ petition. With regard to first information report, which was lodged at the dictate of the District Magistrate, it is pointed out that police has submitted a final report, which is pending acceptance before the competent Court.

With reference to charge No. 2 it is pointed out that the only allegation made is that the expenditure incurred by the petitioner was objectionable and therefore, it is being alleged that the money has been embezzled, which according to the Counsel for the petitioner is selfcontradictory.

With regard to charge No. 3 it is alleged that a Samsung Colour Television has been purchased and the Television is in fact installed in the library of the Institution.

With regard to charge Nos. 4 and 5 it is submitted that the charges themselves are sufficient to establish the attempt of the Management to keep the petitioner out of the Institution. In such set of fact Counsel for the petitioner submits that if opportunity of hearing was afforded, petitioner would have demonstrated that the order of suspension was not justified and in all likelihood the decision of the District Inspector of Schools could have been otherwise.

Sri Anil Sharma, Counsel for the respondent, disputes the correctness of the contention raised on behalf of the Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is a charge of embezzlement of Rs. 17,000/ by the petitioner, which, even if alleged to have been deposited in the account of the Principal, has been withdrawn by the Principal on his own and has been used unauthorized. With regard to order of the District Magistrate, directing fresh enquiry on an application made by the petitioner, it is submitted that no such order has been passed by the District Magistrate.

With regard to charge No. 2 it is pointed out that unauthorized utilization of the money of the Institution amounts to embezzlement and therefore, charge No. 2, as levelled against the petitioner, cannot be said to be without any basis.

With regard to charge No. 3, it is contended that the Samsung Colour Television has been retained by the Principal of the Institution in his residence and has not been installed at the library of the Institution.

With regard to charge Nos. 4 and 5 it is pointed out that Principal of the Institution has disobeyed the order of the Committee of Management of the Institution and has made an attempt to create a dispute pertaining to the Management of the Institution.

Lastly with regard to charge No. 5 it is pointed out that the substantial decrease in the strength of the students is in itself sufficient to establish unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner as Principal of the Institution.

In the circumstances, as have been noticed herein above and in view of the respective case pleased by the parties, this Court is satisfied that interest of substantial justice would have been served if the District Inspector of Schools had afforded an opportunity to petitioner before approving the order of suspension inasmuch as the case canvassed on behalf of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any foundation. However, matter has to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools independently without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.

In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed herein above, it is provided that the District Inspector of Schools, shall pass a fresh order, in exercise of powers under Section 16G (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, preferably within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by either of the parties. Such order shall be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools shall record reasons in support thereof. It is clarified that he is not required to enter into the merit of the charge in detail, only prima facie satisfaction is required to be recorded.

Initially, for a period of four weeks from today or till the decision of the District Inspector of Schools, as directed above, the order dated 26.7.2006 shall remain in abeyance and shall thereafter abide the orders to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools, as directed herein above.

With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of finally.