Surendra Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The payment to the petitioner is dependent upon the outcome of the report of the C.B.C.I.D., which has been challenged in a Section 482, Cr. P.C. petition and is pending consideration before this Court. In this case, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been challenged and the same has been stayed by this Court. On such facts the order of the D.I.O.S. is required to be reviewed. The question of reviewing the claim of the petitioner is not within the power of the District Inspector of Schools inasmuch as no administrative authority has the power to review, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of 1967 AWC 123 and 1928 AWC 40. The said decision clearly lay down that review is permissible only on limited grounds, namely where there is fraud or misrepresentation. In this case, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that on account of the proceedings pending before this Court, which have been stayed, that he is claiming review.

In view of this, there is no ground available which may empower the District Inspector of Schools to have a look into the matter. If the petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. is disposed of or any other order is passed by the Court the petitioner can claim his rights, which shall be subject to any orders to be passed in future.

The petition is misconceived at this stage and is accordingly dismissed.