# Jai Karan Singh v. Principal, Sri Singheshwari Inter college and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 737
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23333 of 1990
- **Bench:** R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-karan-singh-v-principal-sri-singheshwari-inter-college-and-others-40186
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921-
Regulations 35 and 36- Natural JusticeDismissal from Service for misconduct of
dereliction
of
duty,
disobedience,
insubordination
and
indisciplineReinstatement on written apologies-No
improvement-Termination
of
ServiceAdmittedly no enquiry as per Regulation
35 was conducted-No Inquiry Officer
appointed-charge sheet and evidences
relied upon with supporting documents
was not served not allowed to adduce
evidences and cross examine witnessesNo date, time and place of enquiry fixedNo
proper
opportunity
of
hearing
afforded -Order of Termination as well as
approval by D.I.O.S. set aside.

Held-Para 7

However, the enquiry in accordance to
the Regulation 35 and 36 of the 'Act' was
not
properly
conducted,
no
Inquiry
Officer namely senior most teacher was
appointed and the charge sheet and
evidences relied upon with supporting
documents was not served and the
petitioner was not allowed to adduce the
evidences and to cross-examine the
witnesses. The date, time and place of
the enquiry was not fixed and the
opportunity of hearing was not properly
afforded
to
him,
therefore,
the
termination order and the approval of
the termination by the District Inspector
of Schools is not legally sustainable.

## Text

3 All] Jai Karan Singh V. Principal, Sri Singheshwari Inter college and others
737
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23333 of 1990

Jai Karan Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Principal, Sri Singheshwari Inter College,
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.S. Sharma
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921-
Regulations 35 and 36- Natural JusticeDismissal from Service for misconduct of
dereliction
of
duty,
disobedience,
insubordination
and
indisciplineReinstatement on written apologies-No
improvement-Termination
of
ServiceAdmittedly no enquiry as per Regulation
35 was conducted-No Inquiry Officer
appointed-charge sheet and evidences
relied upon with supporting documents
was not served not allowed to adduce
evidences and cross examine witnessesNo date, time and place of enquiry fixedNo
proper
opportunity
of
hearing
afforded -Order of Termination as well as
approval by D.I.O.S. set aside.

Held-Para 7

However, the enquiry in accordance to
the Regulation 35 and 36 of the 'Act' was
not
properly
conducted,
no
Inquiry
Officer namely senior most teacher was
appointed and the charge sheet and
evidences relied upon with supporting
documents was not served and the
petitioner was not allowed to adduce the
evidences and to cross-examine the
witnesses. The date, time and place of
the enquiry was not fixed and the
opportunity of hearing was not properly
afforded
to
him,
therefore,
the
termination order and the approval of
the termination by the District Inspector
of Schools is not legally sustainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri D. K. Srivastava,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondent.

2. In this petition the order dated
1.6.1990 dismissing the service of the
petitioner
by
the
Principal,
Sri
Singheshwari Inter College, Tetri Bazar,
Siddharthanagar has been challenged.

3. Petitioner was given a charge
sheet for unauthorized absence and for
coming
late
several
days
and
for
irregularities
and
disobedience.
The
principal of the college served a notice to
the petitioner and after obtaining his
explanation the dismissal order dated
1.6.1990 was passed. According to the
petitioner his services were if at all could
only be terminated on the basis of
disciplinary enquiry conducting under
Regulation 35 of Chapter III of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in
short called 'Act'), which was brought on
10.3.1975 by notification No. 7/562-V-8
dated 10.3.1975, according to which for
the serious complaints and allegations the
Principal of the college was to appoint a
senior most teacher as an Inquiry Officer.
Regulation 35 of 'Act' reads as below: -
"35. On receipt of adverse report
regarding complaint or charges of serious
nature, the Committee shall appoint the
Principal or Headmaster as Enquiry
Officer in respect of teachers and other
employees (or Manager himself would
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
enquire into if he has been delegated with
the rights under the rules by Committee)
and in case of Principal or Head Master a
small sub-committee be appointed which
will have instructions to present the report
as soon as possible.

In respect of Fourth class employees
Principal/Headmaster
may
appoint
a
senior teacher as Enquiry Officer."

Regulation 36 of 'Act' reads as below: -

"36. (1) The grounds on which it is
proposed to take action shall be reduced
in the form of a definite charge or charges
which shall be communicated to the
employee charged and which shall be so
clear and precise as to give sufficient
indication to the charged employee of the
facts and circumstances against him. He
shall be required within three weeks of
the receipt of the charge-sheet to put in a
written statement of his defence and to
state whether he desired to be heard in
person. If he or the inquiring authority so
desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in
respect of such of the allegations as are
not admitted. At that enquiry such oral
evidence will be heard as that inquiring
authority considers necessary. The person
charged shall be entitled to cross-examine
the witnesses, to give evidence in person,
and to have such witnesses called as he
may wish; provided that the enquiring
authority conducting the enquiry may for
sufficient reasons to be recorded in
writing, refuse to call a witness. The
proceedings shall contain a sufficient
record of the evidence and statement of
the findings and the grounds thereof. The
inquiring authority conducting the enquiry
may
also,
separately
from
these
proceedings,
make
his
own
recommendation
regarding
the
punishment to be imposed on the
employee.
(2) Clause (1) shall not apply where the
person concerned has absconded, or
where it is for other reasons impracticable
to communicate with him.
(3) All or any of the provisions of clause
(1) may for sufficient reasons to be
recorded in writing be waived where there
is difficulty in observing exactly the
requirements
thereof
and
those
requirements can in the opinion of the
inquiring authority be waived without
injustice to the person charged."

4. According to the petitioner a
proper enquiry by a duly appointed
Inquiry Officer in reference to the
regulation 35 of the 'Act' was to be made
in consonance to the principle of natural
justice. Here, the petitioner was charge
sheeted by the principal of the said
college himself and the enquiry was made
by himself as an interested party and after
obtaining the explanation the principal
himself has passed the dismissal order
against the petitioner without affording
him opportunity of hearing, therefore, the
dismissal order is not legally sustainable.

5. The counter affidavit reveals that
the
petitioner
was
suspended
on
29.4.1983 and a charge sheet dated
26.7.1983 was served to him on 28.7.1983
in respect of disobedience, indiscipline
and for dereliction of duty. The petitioner
tendered an unconditional apology with
assurance to the principal by his letter
dated 28.7.1983 (Annexure-C.A.5 to the
counter affidavit) that he shall not make
any mistake in future, on such assurance
the suspension of the petitioner was
revoked and he was reinstated and
deployed again in the said college. The
petitioner thereafter started committing
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Jai Karan Singh V. Principal, Sri Singheshwari Inter college and others
739
same
mistakes
including
gross
insubordination
and
disobedience,
therefore, on 18.4.1984 the petitioner was
again suspended and charge sheeted and
in response to that the petitioner tendered
his written apology dated 24.7.1984
(Annexure-C.A.7 to the counter affidavit)
and a sympathy was shown keeping in
view the written apology and assurance of
the petitioner to improve himself and the
petitioner was again kept in service,
however, the petitioner did not improve
and had committed the same blunder of
insubordination,
indiscipline
and
dereliction of duty i.e. the misconduct as
had been committed by him as such he
was third time suspended on 20.11.1985
(Annexure-C.A.8 to the counter affidavit).
Third time also a written apology dated
23.1.1986 was tendered by the petitioner
and keeping in view his apology on
humanitarian consideration the petitioner
was kept again in service. Despite his all
assurances and written apologies given
three times the petitioner did not improve
himself and was indulged in same
irregularities
of
disobedience,
indiscipline, dereliction of duty and
insubordination, therefore, he was called
for explanation on 16.10.1989 and was
suspended on 19.10.1989 and charge
sheeted on 30.3.1990. No explanation was
submitted by the petitioner, despite
reminder letters given by the principal.
The petitioner submitted his explanation
dated 5.5.1990, which was not found
satisfactory, therefore, the Principal in
order to afford opportunity of hearing
issued another letter dated 18.5.1990 to
the petitioner and the petitioner's service
was
terminated.
According
to
the
respondent
the
principal
was
the
competent authority to terminate the
petitioner, therefore, after affording him
opportunity of hearing the service of the
petitioner was rightly terminated.

6. The endeavourance has been
made on the part of the petitioner to
controvert the contents of the counter
affidavit and to reiterate the averments of
the writ petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties, I find that undisputedly the
petitioner was charge sheeted three times
for dereliction of duty, disobedience,
insubordination and indiscipline and was
placed under suspension and keeping in
view the repeated written apologies of the
petitioner after showing sympathetic
consideration, the petitioner was reinstated and deployed three times, but in
the last he did not show any improvement.
However, the enquiry in accordance to the
Regulation 35 and 36 of the 'Act' was not
properly conducted, no Inquiry Officer
namely senior most teacher was appointed
and the charge sheet and evidences relied
upon with supporting documents was not
served and the petitioner was not allowed
to adduce the evidences and to crossexamine the witnesses. The date, time and
place of the enquiry was not fixed and the
opportunity of hearing was not properly
afforded to him, therefore, the termination
order and the approval of the termination
by the District Inspector of Schools is not
legally
sustainable.
Therefore,
the
termination order dated 1.6.1990 and the
approval thereof by the District Inspector
of Schools are set aside. However,
keeping in view the serious charges
against the petitioner the petitioner is not
to be reinstated and the enquiry therefor
has to be conducted under the provisions
of Regulation 35 and 36 of the 'Act' by the
principal by appointing a senior most
teacher of the college as inquiry Officer,
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
who will give the same charge sheet to the
petitioner with supporting documents and
evidences to be relied upon and the
petitioner shall be under the obligation to
receive the same and shall also be under
obligation to know the date fixed to give
explanation, and avail the opportunity of
rendering documents and evidences and
to cross examine the witnesses. Therefore,
the proper date, time and place for
finalization of the enquiry shall be fixed
and after affording proper opportunity of
hearing the inquiry shall be concluded by
the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner is
expected to cooperate in the inquiry and
shall be in touch to the principal to know
the dates and shall not take unnecessary
adjournments and shall render all possible
co-operations to finalize the enquiry. The
enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer, shall be perused and shall be sent
to the District Inspector and after approval
of the same a proper order shall be passed
in respect of the petitioner within six
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order to the principal
of the said college and to the District
Inspector of Schools.

In view of the above observations
writ petition is disposed of.

8. Copy of this order be given free
of cost to Sri S. S. Sharma, learned
Standing Counsel and on payment of
usual charges to the learned counsel for
the petitioner within one week.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28946 of 2003

Managing Director U.P. Co-Operative
Bank and another
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Chairman,
U.P.
State
Minorities
Commission and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.P. Singh
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri C.M. Rai
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri A.P. Sahi
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-U.P.
Commission for minorities Act 1994 Sec.
9 (C)- power of Commission- Order pass
attaching Bank Account-Whether the
Commission has power to pass such
order? Held-'No'

Commission are only recommendatory
body-not
empowered
to
pass
such
order/ Direction.
Held- Para 4
Unfortunately, we find that these bodies
are often going beyond their jurisdiction
by passing orders staying termination of
service of some Government employee
passing injunction orders or closing the
accounts etc. which is not within their
jurisdiction at all. These Commissions
should act within their jurisdiction and
not do as they release.
Case law:
J.T. 1996 (10) S.C. 287

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in