# Dev Prakash Sharma v. D.I.O.S., Aligarh and others - **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 149 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001-12-19 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35729 of 2001 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dev-prakash-sharma-v-d-i-o-s-aligarh-and-others-39784 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India- Article 226- No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if a misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then that misconduct cannot be the basis for with-holding the promotion- Appointment/promotion can certainly be held up until the person is cleared of the charge. Held- (Para-4) Case referred to- 1998 SCC (L&S) Page 884 The petitioner is an officer in a bank where the highest standard of discipline and integrity has to be maintained. The allegation of embezzlements is subsequent to the meeting of the selection committee, in our opinion, the petitioner's promotion must be held up until he is cleared of that charge. ## Text 1All] Dev Prakash Sharma V. D.I.O.S., Aligarh and others 149 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD DECEMBER 18, 2001 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35729 of 2001 Dev Prakash Sharma ...Petitioner Versus District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.J. Munir Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Shri H.P. Singh U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act- compulsory retirement- within 60 days from suspension the committee of management send proposal to the DIOS- who fixed the date for hearing- held- DIOS has no jurisdiction-DIOS- only a Post Office to send the relevant papers to the Board who is only competent to take decision. Held- Para 2 The proposal of punishment of teacher by the Committee of Management can be approved or disapproved only by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board under the provisions of U.P. Secondary Educations Service Selection Board Act 1982 and the District Inspector of Schools has nothing to do in the matter, District Inspector of Schools is only the Post Office to transmit the relevant papers to the Board. (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the counter affidavit filed by Smt. Manju Singh. 2. In paragraphs no. 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by Smt. Manju Singh, District Inspector of Schools concerned that since the Committee of Management has already passed a resolution, within sixty days from the date of suspension and submitted the proposal of punishment in the form of compulsory retirement of the petitioner Dev Prakash Sharma, thereafter District Inspector of Schools has fixed dates for hearing the petitioner and the Committee of Management, as required, before making the approval/ disapproval to the proposed compulsory retirement of the petitioner Dev Prakash Sharma. This statement is contrary to law and cannot be accepted. The proposal of punishment of teacher by the Committee of Management can be approved or disapproved only by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board under the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act 1982 and the District Inspector of Schools has nothing to do in the matter. District Inspector of Schools is only the Post Office to transmit the relevant papers to the Board. 3. It is also settled by the Full Bench of this Court that in the matter of suspension of a teacher, the District Inspector of Schools does not become functions- officio and can even pass orders after expiry of sixty days and can still decide the matter of approval of suspension. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only decision that can be INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 150 taken is that of the approval of suspension till the matter of punishment is finally approved or disapproved by the Selection Board. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26th July, 2001 deserves to be quashed so far as it directs the payment of salary to the petitioner. Petitioner shall continue to be suspended. He will be entitled for subsistence allowance. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh is quashed. Smt. Manju Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh shall pay Rs. 2500/- as costs to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of finally. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2001 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19658 of 2001 Kant Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gomti Gramin Bank and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bheem Singh Sri Ashook Khare Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Singh S.C. Constitution of India- Article 226- No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if a misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then that misconduct cannot be the basis for with-holding the promotion- Appointment/promotion can certainly be held up until the person is cleared of the charge. Held- (Para-4) Case referred to- 1998 SCC (L&S) Page 884 The petitioner is an officer in a bank where the highest standard of discipline and integrity has to be maintained. The allegation of embezzlements is subsequent to the meeting of the selection committee, in our opinion, the petitioner's promotion must be held up until he is cleared of that charge. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he has been selected for promotion from officer scale- 1 to officer scale 2 in the respondent bank. It appears that subsequently a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner making allegation of embezzlement of Rs.1,22,000/-. In our opinion, until and unless the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry there is no question of his promotion particularly, when the petitioner is an officer in bank where the highest degree of discipline and integrity is required to be maintained in order to maintain public confidence in the bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection committee held its meeting prior to the memorandum which has been issued to the petitioner and he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs.