AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner before this Court is employed as Lecturer in 1 Kakori Shaheed Inter College, Jalalabad, Shahjhanpur. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the charges by the Committee of Management of the institution. The order of suspension dated 31.3.2010 was subjected to challenge by means of writ petition No. 23714 of 2010. The writ Court while entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 29.4.2010, stayed the order dated 31.3.2010. The stay order was challenged by the Committee of Management by way of Special Appeal No. 803 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench after setting aside the interim order of the writ Court pleased to issue the following direction and disposed of the Special Appeal:
"We, therefore, dispose of the special appeal with a direction to the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry within two months and the Enquiry Officer shall be other than Krishna Murari. The respondent No. 4 shall remain suspended. If the enquiry is completed and if in the enquiry he is exonerated, the order of suspension shall cease to remain in operation. However, if in the enquiry the charges are proved then the Committee of Management shall refer the matter to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, which shall take a decision in accordance with law within two months thereafter. The respondent No. 4 shall co-operate in the enquiry. As nothing remains to be decided in the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, the same is also disposed of."
The Appellate Court permitted only two months'' time to the Enquiry Officer to complete the proceedings with a direction that the Manager of the institution will not act the Enquiry Officer. The Committee of Management, therefore, resolved that the enquiry be conducted through one Pankaj Kumar Saxena, member of the Committee of Management. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner thereafter. However Pankaj Kumar Saxena by means of his letter dated 26.4.2010 informed the Committee of Management that he will not be able to discharge his duties as he is being threatened by the petitioner. Therefore, he resigned. The Committee of Management in these circumstances decided to appoint one Sandeep Mishra, Member of the Committee of Management as Enquiry Officer and accordingly the petitioner was informed of the appointment of new Enquiry Officer, therefore, he must extend co-operation by submitting his reply. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, enquiry against the conduct of a teacher can be held by the Manager or by the Principal of the institution only, therefore, the appointment of a member of the Committee of Management as Enquiry Officer is illegal.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after examining the records, I am of the considered opinion that the power to appoint the Enquiry Officer is with the Committee of Management under Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act. It has the discretion at the first instance to appoint the Manager or the Principal of the institution as the Enquiry Officer which it had done. The Manager was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. However because of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Manager could not continue as the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the Committee of Management dissolved to appoint another Enquiry Officer.
I am of the considered opinion that Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act providing for appointment of an Enquiry Officer for conducting the departmental enquiry against teacher/Principal of the institution comprises of two separates provisions i.e.
(a) an Enquiry Officer has to be appointed by the Committee of Management to hold the enquiry against the teacher on the charges. Such appointment of Enquiry Officer by the Committee of Management is the mandatory part of the Rule.
(b) The Manager or Principal be the Enquiry Officer is only directory in nature as in a given set of facts where there is a Prabandh Sanchalak working in the institution and there is no permanent Principal then some other person has to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Likewise in a given case where the teacher alleges bias against the Manager and the Principal of the institution, some other person has to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
In the facts and circumstances of the case where the Division Bench of this Court had directed that the Manager shall not act as the Enquiry Officer, the Committee of Management has rightly taken a decision to appoint another member of the Committee of Management as the Enquiry Officer.
Even otherwise this Court may record that since the petitioner has not been able to substantiate any allegations of bias against the Enquiry Officer now appointed, there is little or no justification to interfere with the appointment of the Enquiry Officer specifically in the circumstances when the Division Bench of this Court has directed that the enquiry must be completed within 2 months.
In the totality of the circumstances as noticed herein above, this Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed.