# Committee of Management & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 811
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-05-06
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 909 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45800
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Section 16(G) - Regulations
framed under Act, 1921 - Regulation 39 of
Chapter III - Suspension of Teacher -
Approval
or
Disapproval
by
DIOS
-
Opportunity of Hearing - If all the required
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
papers and information as prescribed under
sub-section (7) of Section 16G of the Act,
1921 and Regulation 39 have been submitted
by the Management to the District Inspector
of Schools to obtain approval of suspension,
then opportunity of hearing at the stage of
granting approval or disapproval is not
required to be afforded to the Management or
the employee - But if the employee has
submitted any representation or objection
against the order of suspension, then the
District Inspector of Schools shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the Management
and the concerned employee while passing
the order of approval or disapproval which
must contain brief reasons Section 16-FF.
(Para 20)
Writ Petition disposed off (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 811
R.K. Garg vs. Union of India, (1996) 2
SCC 405 (para-7) and Bhavesh D.
Parish vs. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC
471
(para-26),
Narmada
Bachao
Andolan and others vs. Union of India,
(2000) 10 SCC 664 (para-229) and M.P.
Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P. (1997)
7 SCC 592 (para-41) and State of
Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga,
(1998) 4 SCC 117 (para-25).

12. In the case of Union of India vs.
Shankar Lal Soni, (2010) 12 SCC 503
(para-18)
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
explained its judgment in the case of Ram
Singh (supra) and held that decision to
grant a certain concession or certain
benefit and the conditions for their
grant
are
matters
for
the
administrators alone and the court
should not interfere in the matter on
the premise that it was of the opinion
that some of the conditions imposed
were not justified.

13. In view of the above discussion
and considering the law laid down by the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
various
judgments including in the case case of
M.P. Oil Extraction (supra), it can be
safely concluded that the executive
authority of the State must be held to be
within its competence to frame a policy
for the administration in basic schools
unless the policy framed is absolutely
capricious and not being informed by
reason whatsoever and arbitrary. A policy
decision can also not be sustained if
policy offends constitutional provisions or
comes into conflict with any statutory
provision. In other words, a policy
decision is in the domain of the executive
authority of the State. The court should
not embark on the unchartered ocean of
public policy and should not question the
efficacy or otherwise of such policy so
long it does not offend any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or
Statute.

14. The impugned paragraph of the
government order/ policy decision dated
02.12.2019 neither offends Article 14 of
the Constitution of India nor offends other
constitutional provisions nor it is in
conflict with any of the provisions of the
Rules. Therefore, no interference can be
made by this court.

15. For all the reasons afore-stated, I
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A811
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

WRIT A No. 909 of 2020

Committee of Management & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Srivastava III

A. Civil Law - Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Section 16(G) - Regulations
framed under Act, 1921 - Regulation 39 of
Chapter III - Suspension of Teacher -
Approval
or
Disapproval
by
DIOS
-
Opportunity of Hearing - If all the required
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
papers and information as prescribed under
sub-section (7) of Section 16G of the Act,
1921 and Regulation 39 have been submitted
by the Management to the District Inspector
of Schools to obtain approval of suspension,
then opportunity of hearing at the stage of
granting approval or disapproval is not
required to be afforded to the Management or
the employee - But if the employee has
submitted any representation or objection
against the order of suspension, then the
District Inspector of Schools shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the Management
and the concerned employee while passing
the order of approval or disapproval which
must contain brief reasons Section 16-FF.
(Para 20)
Writ Petition disposed off (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Mang. Commt., Dayanand Inter College,
Gorakhpur & anr. Vs D.I.O.S. & ors. (1980)
UPLBEC 168
2. Commt. of Mang. of Maharajganj Inter
College Vs D.I.O.S., Maharajganj (1999) 3
UPLBEC 1765
3. Hari Singh Rajpoot Vs St. of U.P. (2015) 2
UPLBEC 1362
4. Ram Autar Verma Vs St. of U.P. (2006) 65
ALR 592
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
the State respondents and the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that the respondent no. 4 is an
Officiating
Principal
in
Janta
Inter
College,
Ahmadpur,
Brahman,
Saharanpur. From the averments made in
paragraphs 4 & 5 of the writ petition, it
appears that there are two rival groups in
Committee of Management. One such
group is led by the petitioner no. 2. It
appears that a Writ-C No. 25966 of 2019
was
filed
by
the
Committee
of
Management in which an order dated
13.9.2019 was passed by this Court
directing that the petitioners shall publish
an
election
notification
forthwith
announcing the election programme and
the District Inspector of Schools shall
appoint an election observer whenever a
demand is made by the petitioner and the
election shall be held as per election
programme.

3. In the aforenoted facts, it appears
that the petitioners issued notices to the
respondent No.4 dated 24.10.2019 and
24.10.2019 followed by reminders dated
11.11.2019
and
26.11.2019
making
allegations of misbehavior (indiscipline)
and use of vulgar words against the
Manager. The respondent no. 4 submitted
a reply dated 24.10.2019 denying the
allegations and submitted that he made
the request to the Manager to sign the
salary bill of teachers and non teaching
staff for the months of September and
October, 2019 which was not signed till
23.10.2019 and after persuasion and on
request of the Deputy Manager, it was
signed by the Manager. He also submitted
that if the request so made has been felt
otherwise by the Manager in any way,
then he submits apology. He also
submitted that on 22.10.2019, he was on
election duty.

4. The aforesaid notices dated
24.10.2019 and 11.11.2019 issued by the
petitioners to the respondent No.4 are
confined only on two points; firstly the
allegation of misbehaviour (indiscipline)
by the respondent no. 4 for getting
signature on salary bills and secondly
6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 813
absence on 22.10.2019 and use of vulgar
words.

5. The notice dated 11.11.2019
issued by the petitioners to the respondent
no. 4 is reproduced below:-

""izs"kd] lsok esa]

izcU/kd iz/kkukpk;Z

turk b.Vj dkyst turk b.Vj
dkyst

vgeniqj
czkã.k]
iks0
vyhiqjk1⁄4lgkjuiqj1⁄2 vgeniqj czkã.k]l0iqj

tuin
dksM&16
fo|ky;
la[;k%&1015

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

i=kad&ts0,0ch0@iz0l0&210&75@2019
&20 fnukad 11&11&2019

f}rh; uksfVl

fo"k;%& vki }kjk fnukad 23-10-2019
dks vuq'kklughurk vHknzrk ds lEcU/k esaA

mi;qZDr fo"k;d f}rh; uksfVl ds
ek/;e ls vkidks lwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS fd
fnukad
24-10-2019
dks
i=
la[;k
ts0,0ch0@iz0l0@262&67@2019&20 ds }kjk
vkils vuq'kklughurk] vHknzrk ,oa vi'kCnksa dk
iz;ksx fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa Lif"Vdj.k ekaxk
x;k Fkk ftlds fy, vkidks ,d lIrkg dk
le; fn;k x;k FkkA ijUrq vkius blds lEcU/k
esa vkt rd Hkh dksbZ Lif"Vdj.k ugha fn;kA
ftlls izrhr gksrk gS fd vki vkns'kksa dh
vogsyuk dj jgs gSaA 1⁄4fnuakd 24-10-2019 dks
fd;s x;s Lif"Vdj.k dh Nk;kizfr i= ds lkFk
layXu gSA1⁄2

vr% vkidks bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls
iqu% lwfpr fd;k tk jgk gS fd fnukad 24-102019 dks ekaxs x;s Lif"Vdj.k dk tokc i=
izkfIr ds ikap fnu ds vUnj izLrqr djsaA vU;Fkk
dh fLFkfr esa vkids fo:) vuq'kklukRed
dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, eq>s ck/; gksuk iMs+xk
ftlds fy, vki iq.kZR;k% mRrjnk;h gksaxsA

layXud%& mijksDrkuqlkj

 Hkonh;

Mk0
fot; dqekj 'kekZ 1⁄4izcU/kd1⁄2

turk b.Vj dkyst vgeniqj czkã.k

lgkjuiqj

i=kad%&ts0,0ch0@iz0l0&2019&20

fnukad ------- rnSo -------

izfrfyfi%& fuEuor~ lHkh dh lsok esa
lwpukFkZ iszf"krA

1- Jheku vk;qDr e.My] lgkjuiqjA

2- ftykf/kdkjh egksn;] lgkjuiqjA

3- la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd lgkjuiqj
e.My] l0iqjA

4-
ftyk
fo|ky;
fujh{kd]
lgkjuiqjA

Mk0
fot; dqekj 'kekZ 1⁄4izcU/kd1⁄2

turk b.Vj dkyst vgeniqj czkã.k

lgkjuiqj"

6. It is the case of the petitioners
that the Committee of Management by
resolution
dated
12.12.2019
has
suspended the respondent no. 4 and
issued
a
suspension
order
dated
13.12.2019 informing the respondent no.
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4 that he has been suspended with
immediate effect.

7. The petitioners sent a letter dated
13.12.2019 to the District Inspector of
Schools for approval of suspension of the
respondent no. 4 which is reproduced
below:-

"izs"kd] lsok esa]

izcU/kd Jheku ftyk fo|ky;
fujh{kd

turk b.Vj dkyst lgkjuiqj

vgeniqj
czkã.k]
iks0
vyhiqjk1⁄4lgkjuiqj1⁄2

tuin
dksM&16
fo|ky;
la[;k%&1015

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

i=kad&ts0,0ch0@iz0l0&305&06@2019
&20 fnukad 13&12&2019

fo"k;%& dk;Zokgd iz/kkukpk;Z Jh
jkefe= feJ ds fuyEcu dk vuqeksnu fn;s
tkus ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

lwpukFkZ fuosnu gS fd bl fo|ky;
ds dk;Zokgd iz/kkukpk;Z Jh jkefe= feJ }kjk
dh xbZ vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpj.k ,oa vU;
dkj.kksa ls izcU/k lfefr us viuh cSBd fnukad
12&12&2019 ds izLrko la0&02 ds }kjk Jh
jkefe= feJ] dk;Z0 iz/kkukpk;Z dks fuyfEcr dj
fn;k gSA

vr% vko';d i=ktkr layXu djrs
gq,s vuqjks/k djuk gS fd fuyEcu dk vuqeksnu
iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA vkidh vfr d`ik
gksxhA

layXud%& fuEukuqlkj iszf"kr gSaA

1- Jh jkefe= fe+J] dk;Z0 iz/kkukpk;Z
ds fuyEcu i= dh Nk;kizfrA

2- Jh jkefe= feJ] dk;Z0 iz/kkukpk;Z
ds Lif"Vdj.k dh Nk;kizfrA

3- lk{; dh lh0Mh0A

4- Jh jkefe= fe+J] dk;Z0 iz/kkukpk;Z
ds fo:) vuq'kklughurk] nqjkpj.k vkfn ds
lEcU/k esa Nk=@Nk=kvksa] v/;kid@deZpkfj;ksa
o vU; ls iwoZ esa izkIr f'kdk;rh i=ksa dh
Nk;kizfr;kaA

5- ,ts.Ms dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfrA

6- fnukad 12-12-2019 dh cSBd dh
dk;Zokgh dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfrA

izkIr

16-12-2019

izcU/kd

Mk0
fot; dqekj 'kekZ 1⁄4izcU/kd1⁄2

turk b.Vj dkyst vgeniqj czkã.k

lgkjuiqj"

8. By the impugned order dated
4.1.2020,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Saharanpur disapproved the
suspension of the respondent no. 4.
Aggrieved with this order, the petitioners
have filed the present writ petition.

Submissions:-

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the impugned
order dated 4.1.2020 has been passed
by the respondent without affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Committee of Management. He relied
upon two Division Bench judgments of
6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 815
this Court in Committee of Management
of
Maharajganj
Inter
College
Vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Maharajganj (1999) 3 UPLBEC 1765
and Hari Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P.
(2015) 2 UPLBEC 1362. He further
submits that before disapproving the
suspension, it was mandatory by the
respondent no. 3 under Section 16(G)(7)
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act to
afford an opportunity of hearing to the
Committee of Management. Thus, the
impugned order of disapproval is in
breach of principles of natural justice, and
therefore, deserves to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4 submits that there is a
serious dispute between two rival groups
of
Committee
of
Management.
He
submits that the resolution was defective
inasmuch as only seven members have
passed the alleged resolution dated
12.12.2019 whereas on the same day
eight members of the Committee of
Management passed another resolution.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
who
inquired into the matter and submitted a
report to the District Inspector of Schools,
Saharanpur that there is serious dispute
between two rival groups of Committee
of Management. He submits that the
impugned resolution is merely a paper
work and it was technically defective as
observed in the impugned order, and
therefore, the impugned order cannot be
said to suffer from any error of law. He
furthers submits that the other technical
defect was that the resolution was not in
accordance with Regulation 39 Chapter
III framed under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921.

Discussion and Findings:-

11. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

12. The relevant provisions having
bearing on the controversy involved in the
present writ petition are the provision of
sub sections 5, 6, 7 & 8 of Section 16(G)
of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 (herein after referred to as the Act
'1921') and Regulation 39 of Chapter III
of the Regulations framed under the Act
1921 which are reproduced below:.

"Section-16(G)

(5) No Head of Institution or
teacher shall be suspended by the
management, unless in the opinion of the
management--

(a) the charges against him are
serious enough to merit his dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank; or

(b) his continuance in office is
likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct
of disciplinary proceedings against him;
or

(c) any criminal case for an
offence involving moral turpitude against
him is under investigation, inquiry or
trial.

(6)
Where
any
Head
of
Institution or teacher is suspended by the
Committee of Management, it shall be
reported to the Inspector within thirty
days from the date of the commencement
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary
Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975,
in case the order of suspension was
passed before such commencement, and
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within seven days from the date of the
order of suspension in any other case,
and the report shall contain such
particulars as may be prescribed and be
accompanied by all relevant documents.

(7)
No
such
order
of
suspension shall, unless approved in
writing by the Inspector, remain in force
for more than sixty days from the date of
commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Secondary
Education
Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case
may be, from the date of such order, and
the order of the Inspector shall be final
and shall not be questioned in any Court.

(8) If, at any time, the Inspector
is satisfied the disciplinary proceedings
against the Head of the Institution or
teacher are being delayed, for no fault of
the Head of the Institution or the teacher,
the
Inspector
may,
after
affording
opportunity to the management to make
representation to revoke an order of
suspension passed under this section."

Regulation 39-

(a) The report regarding the
suspension of the head of institution or
of the teacher to be submitted to the
Inspector under sub-section 6 of Section
16-G
shall
contain
the
following
particulars and be accompanied by the
following document-

(a) the name of the persons
suspended along with, particulars of the
)posts including grades) held by him since
the date of his original appointment till
the
time
of
suspension
including
particulars as to the nature of tenure held
at the time of suspension, e.g., temporary
permanent or officiating:

(b) a certified copy of the
report on the basis of which such person
was last confirmed or allowed to cross
efficiency bar, whichever later;

(c) details of all the charges on
the basis of which such person was
suspended;

(d) certified copies of the
complaints, reports and inquiry report, if
any, of the inquiry officer on the basis of
which such person was suspended;

(e)
certified
copy
of
the
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management suspending such person;

(f) certified copy of the order of
suspension issued to such persons;

(g) in case such person was
suspended previously also, details of the
charges, on which and the period for
which he was suspended on previous
occasions
accompanied
by
certified
copies of the orders on the basis of which
he was reinstated.

(2) An employee other than a
head of institution or a teacher may be
suspended by the appointing authority on
any of the grounds specified in Clauses
(a) to (c) of sub-section (5) of Section 16G."

[(3) mi&fofue; (2) ds vUrxZr
fuyEcu dk dksbZ vkns'k izHkko esa ugha
jgsxk] tc rd fd ,sls vkns'k ds fnukad ls lkB
fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{kd }kjk bldk fyf[kr :i esa
vuqeksnu u dj fn;k tk;A**

13. In the case of the Managing
Committee, Dayanand Inter College,
Gorakhpur (through Sri Uma Shankar,
6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 817
Manager) and another vs. The District
Inspector of Schools and others, 1980
UPLBEC 168 (paras 4, 6, 10, 11 and
17), a Division Bench of this court has
observed that no opportunity of hearing
is required at the time of approval or
disapproval of a resolution under Section
16(G)(7) of the Act, 1921. It held as
under:

"10. We are hence inclined to
read in sub-section (7) the power of
Inspector to disapprove the order of
suspension. In our opinion, the power of
approval embraces within it the power to
also disapprove. This is a well understood
rule of general law. The principle
underlying Section 16 of the U.P. General
Clauses Act would also, in our view,
apply. In this connection, we may usefully
refer to the decision of the Federal Court
in Rayarappan v. Madhavi Amma (A.I.R.
1950 F.C. p.140)

17. In regard to the next
submission of the learned counsel that in
absence of any opportunity having been
afforded
to
the
management,
the
impugned order against respondent no.3
would stand vitiated in law. Here again
we are unable to agree. In view of our
analysis of the provisions above, we are
clearly of the view that at the stage
where the Inspector considers
the
question of approval or disapproval of
the
order
of
suspension,
the
management, apart from the requirement
of
sending
the
report
containing
particulars as may be prescribed and the
relevant documents, it has in law no right
to be afforded an opportunity as
contemplated in sub-section (8). The
present was not a case of revocation of an
already approved order of suspension."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

14. In the case of Committee of
Management
of
Maharajganj
Inter
College & another Vs. District Inspector
of Schools, Maharajganj & another
(1999) 3 UPLBEC 1765, a Divivion
Bench judgment of this Court considered
a case where on receipt of papers for
approval of suspension of the Principal,
the District Inspector of Schools received
objections of the Principal and without
examining the papers submitted by the
Committee of Management along with
the resolution, declined to approve the
suspension relying upon the letter
addressed to him by the Principal. On
such facts, the Division Bench quashed
the order of disapproval passed by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
and
remitted back the matter to him to
decision afresh. The Division Bench held
as under:-

"In fact, the question was not
examined by the learned single Judge in
the above perspective and instead the
learned single Judge dismissed the writ
petition holding that while considering
the approval or disapproval of suspension
order, no opportunity of hearing was
required to be given by the District
Inspector of Schools. It is true that a
Division Bench of this Court has held in
the case of Managing Committee,
Dayanand Inter College v. District
Inspector of Schools and others, 1980
UPLBEC 168, that at the stage of
approval
or
disapproval
of
the
suspension order, the Inspector is not
required to afford any opportunity of
hearing to the management and that he
is only to consider the relevant material
referred to in Registration No. 39 of
Chapter III of the Regulations. The said
decision, in our opinion, is of no avail. In
the instant case, however, as pointed out
818 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above, the District Inspector of Schools
did not address himself to the charges
and
the
relevant
documents
and
disapproved the suspension order on the
basis of the representation made by the
teacher concerned. If the suspension is
to be disapproved on consideration of
any defect pointed out by the concerned
teacher by means of a representation,
opportunity has to be afforded to the
Management before disapproving of the
suspension on any such defect in the
proceedings."

(Emphasis supplied by me)

15. In the case of Hari Singh
Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. (2015) 2
UPLBEC 1362 (paragraphs 4, 6 & 8) a
Division Bench of this Court held as
under:-

"4. When the District Inspector of
Schools considers whether to approve an
order of suspension under Section 16-G of the
Act, it is a well settled principle of law that an
opportunity of being heard ought to be
granted to the teacher, the Principal and the
Management. Moreover, it is also a well
settled principle of law that the District
Inspector of Schools must pass a reasoned
order indicating at least brief reasons for
granting his approval or, as the case may be,
disapproval to the suspension of a teacher
(See:
Committee
of
Management,
Maharajganj Inter College Vs. District
Inspector of Schools, 1999 (3) UPLBEC
1765. In the present case, ex facie the order
of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9
December 2014, which was in question
before the learned Single Judge, did not
indicate any reasons.

6. We have duly perused the order
of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9
December 2014. The first paragraph of the
order contains only a recital of the fact that
following
the
enquiry
report,
the
Management had resolved on 16 November
2014 to place the appellant teacher under
suspension and, accordingly, an application
was submitted on 4 December 2014 for
approval. The second paragraph of the order
only contains his conclusion granting
approval. Not even brief reasons were
indicated in the order, which is totally bereft
of any reasons whatsoever. Moreover, it is not
in dispute that the appellant was not given an
opportunity of being heard, which has been
held to be required in the judgment of the
Division Bench noted above.

8. For these reasons, we allow
the special appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 9 February
2015. We set aside, in consequence, the
order of approval granted by the District
Inspector of Schools on 9 December 2014
and direct that the District Inspector of
Schools shall pass a fresh order in
accordance with law after furnishing to
the appellant a reasonable opportunity
of being heard. We however, decline to
accede to the prayer of the appellant that
the appellant should be reinstated in
service pending a decision by the District
Inspector of Schools."
 (Emphasis supplied by me)

16. In the case of Ram Autar
Verma vs. State of U.P. (2006) 65 ALR
592 (All) (Para-11), a bench of this court
considered the provisions of Section
16G(7) of the Act and Regulation 39 and
held as under:-

"By necessary corollary the
District Inspector of Schools is required
to consider the approval of the suspension
6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 819
effected by the Management in the light
of the documents which are so forwarded
to him under Regulation 39. He is not
expected to take into consideration any
other documents which is not required to
be transmitted under Regulation 37,
subject however to the condition that any
other document may be filed by the
delinquent
employee
for
alleging
malafides, non-consideration of martial
evidence which may already be on record
as well as any other document relevant
(the list is not exhaustive and may vary in
facts of particular case). However,
consideration
of
such
foreign
documents must be proceeded by
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Committee of Management."

17. A careful reading of Section
16G(7) of the Act, 1921 read with
Regulations 39 and 40 leads to an
irresistible conclusion that where any
head of the Institution or teacher is
suspended
by
the
Committee
of
Management, it shall be reported to the
Inspector within seven days from the date
of order of suspension. The report sent by
the Committee of Management shall
contain such particulars and shall be
accompanied with such documents as are
prescribed in Regulation 39. The order of
suspension is subject to approval of the
inspector under sub-Section (7). Neither
sub-section (7) of Section 16G nor
Regulation 39 require any opportunity of
hearing to the Committee of Management
or the employee for approval of the order
of suspension. However, the question of
affording opportunity of hearing either to
the Committee of Management or the
suspended employee has been judicially
interpreted by three Division Benches of
this Court as mentioned in paragraphs-13,
14 and 15 above. At first glance, there
appears to be some conflict between these
judgments on the point of affording
opportunity of hearing but on deeper
examination, I find that there is no
conflict between these judgments.

18. In the case of the Managing
Committee, Dayanand Inter College,
Gorakhpur (supra), the Division Bench
held that where the report and papers as
required under Sub-section (7) of Section
16G of the Act, 1921 read with
Regulation 39 of the regulation are sent
by the Committee of Management, then at
that stage while considering the question
of approval or disapproval of the order of
suspension, no opportunity of hearing is
to be afforded to the Committee of
Management. In the case of Committee of
Management
of
Maharajganj
Inter
College & another (supra), the Division
Bench considered a case where the
District Inspector of Schools received
objections of the Principal and without
examining the papers submitted by the
Committee of Management along with
the resolution, declined to approve the
suspension
relying
upon
the
letter
addressed to him by the Principal, then in
that situation, the Division quashed the
order of disapproval and distinguished the
Division Bench judgment in the case of
the Managing Committee, Dayanand
Inter College, Gorakhpur (supra) and
held that if the suspension is to be
disapproved on consideration of any
defect pointed out by the concerned
teacher by means of a representation,
then an opportunity has to be afforded
to the Management before disapproving
of the suspension.

19. In the case of Hari Singh
Rajpoot Vs. State of U.P. (supra), the
Division Bench laid down the law that
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while granting approval or disapproval to
the suspension of a teacher, brief reasons
should be recorded in the order of
approval or disapproval. The judgment in
the case of the Managing Committee,
Dayanand Inter College, Gorakhpur
(supra) was noticed in the case of
Committee
of
Management
of
Maharajganj Inter College & another
(supra) and it was distinguished inasmuch
as an objection was received by the
District Inspector of Schools from the
suspended employee and on that fact, it
was held that while considering the
objection of the suspended employee, the
Inspector
should
have
afforded
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Management. The aforesaid judgment in
the case of Committee of Management
of
Maharajganj
Inter
College
&
another (supra) has been followed in the
case of Hari Singh Rajpoot Vs. State of
U.P. (supra).

20. Scope of consideration under
Section 16G(7) read with Regulation 39 is
very limited as has also been explained in
the case of Ram Autar Verma (supra).
Thus, a conjoint reading of the aforenoted four judgments reveal that if all the
required papers and informations as
prescribed under sub-section (7) of
Section 16G of the Act, 1921 and
Regulation 39 have been submitted by
the
Management
to
the
District
Inspector of Schools to obtain approval
of suspension, then opportunity of
hearing at the stage of granting
approval or disapproval is not required
to be afforded to the Management or
the employee. But if the employee has
submitted
any
representation
or
objection
against
the
order
of
suspension, then the District Inspector
of Schools shall afford an opportunity
of hearing to the Management and the
concerned employee while passing the
order of approval or disapproval which
must contain brief reasons. This view is
further supported by the provisions of
sub-Section (8) of Section 16G, which
specifically provides for an opportunity of
hearing at the subsequent stage to the
Management by the District Inspector of
Schools while considering to revoke an
order of suspension passed under subsection (7) when the Inspector is satisfied
that the disciplinary proceedings against
the head of the Institution or teacher, is
being delayed for no fault of the head of
the Institution or the teacher.

21. Undisputedly, the respondent
No.3 has neither required the respondent
No.4 to submit any objection nor any
objection
was
submitted
by
the
respondent No.4 before the respondent
No.3 and as such in view of the law laid
down by the Division Bench in the case
of the Managing Committee, Dayanand
Inter College, Gorakhpur (supra), the
respondent No.4 has not committed any
manifest error of law to pass the
impugned
order
without
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Management and the respondent No.4.

22. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has not made any submission
on merits of the impugned order and
confined his submissions only on the
point that the impugned order is violative
of principles of natural justice as it has
been
passed
without
affording
opportunity of hearing. His submission
has been rejected by me for reasons stated
in paragraphs above. Therefore, I do not
find any good reason to interfere with the
impugned order, in view of the position
settled by the Division Bench of this court
6 All. Shivam Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 821
in the case of the Managing Committee,
Dayanand Inter College, Gorakhpur
(supra). However, to meet the ends of
justice, it is directed that the petitioners/
Competent Authority shall conclude the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
respondent No.4, in accordance with law,
expeditiously
preferably
within
two
months if not completed so far, keeping in
mind
the
time
frame
provided
in
Regulation 40.

23. With the aforesaid directions,
the writ petition is disposed off.
----------
(2020)06ILR A821
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1136 of 2018

Shivam Maurya ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Object
- The Act is a beneficial legislation. The
principles of such beneficial legislation are to
be
applied
only
for
the
purpose
of
interpretation of this statute - It does not
envisage incarceration of a juvenile which
clearly shows that the intention and object
was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and
decent civilised life. It provides him an
opportunity to mend his life for the future.
(Para 14)

B.Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Section 2(k), 2(l) & 19 - Juvenile in conflict
with Law - Effect of conviction under the Act -
Section 19 has been incorporated in order to
give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life
with no stigma and to wipe out the
circumstances of his past - It thus provides
that
a
juvenile
shall
not
suffer
any
disqualification attaching to conviction of an
offence under such Act - It protects a juvenile
and any stigma attached to his conviction is
also removed. (Para 10 and 14)

C. Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 -
Concealment of pendency of criminal case -
Cancellation of candidature - The concealment
of the pendency of criminal case against the
appellant-petitioner was of no consequence -
As per the requirement of law a conviction in
an offence will not be treated
as a
disqualification for a juvenile - The intention
of the legislature is clear that in so far as
juveniles are concerned their criminal records
is not to stand in their way in their lives -
Held, the cancellation of the candidature of
the appellant-petitioner is bad. The authority
concerned failed to appreciate the fact that
the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit
of the provisions of Act of 2000.

Special Appeal allowed; Writ Petition
allowed (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned
Standing
Counsel
and
perused
the
records.

2. The present appeal is directed
against the judgment dated 05.10.2018
passed in Writ A No. 21337 of 2018 by
which the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the said writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner therein cannot
be given benefit for suppression of an