# Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 659
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-17
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4566 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52422
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Removal - U.P. Nagar
Palika
Parishad
Employees
(Enquiry,
Punishment and Removal) Rules, 1960 -
U.P. Government Servant Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 1999 - There is a well laid
rule i.e. Rule 7, providing for a detailed
procedure as per the U.P. Government
Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
to be followed for inviting a penalty which
is major in nature.

## Text

9 All. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
11. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned
recovery is in violation of Government
Order dated 16.01.2007 (supra), which has
been interpreted and affirmed by the Apex
Court in re; Sushil Kumar Singhal
(supra). Further, such recovery has been
executed in absence of any specific
undertaking of the present petitioner at the
time of making payment of such amount, if
any, therefore, the petitioner would be
entitled for the benefit of the dictum of the
Apex Court in re; Rafiq Masih (supra) ,
Jagdev Singh (supra) and Jagdish
Prasad Singh (supra) .

12. Accordingly, the writ petition
is allowed

13. The impugned order dated
14.03.2024 passed by opposite parties no.3
are hereby set aside/ quashed.

14. The opposite parties are
directed to repay/refund the amount which
has been deducted from the petitioner
forthwith, preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order, failing which the
petitioner would be entitled for the interest
on the delayed payment at the rate of 8%
p.a.

[Before parting with, I appreciate
the efforts and research made by Shri
Piyush
Tripathi,
Research
Associate
attached with me, in finding out the
relevant case laws applicable in the present
case.]
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 659
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 4566 of 2019

Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Gupta, Alok Shukla, Prabhakar
Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Devesh Kumar Shukla, Dharmesh
Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Agarwal, Sharad
Saran Srivastava, Shekhar Gangal

A. Service Law - Removal - U.P. Nagar
Palika
Parishad
Employees
(Enquiry,
Punishment and Removal) Rules, 1960 -
U.P. Government Servant Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 1999 - There is a well laid
rule i.e. Rule 7, providing for a detailed
procedure as per the U.P. Government
Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
to be followed for inviting a penalty which
is major in nature.

1.
The
facts
constituting
the
misconduct on which it is proposed to
take action shall be reduced in the form of
definite charge or charges to be called
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be
approved by the disciplinary authority...

2. The charges framed shall be so
precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged Government
servant of the facts and circumstances
against him. The proposed documentary
evidence and the name of the witnesses
proposed to prove the same alongwith
oral evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in
the charge-sheet.

3. Where the charged Government
servant denies the charges, the Inquiry
Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses
proposed in the charge-sheet and record
their oral evidence in presence of the
charged Government servant who shall be
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given opportunity to cross-examine such
witnesses. After recording the aforesaid
evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and
record
the
oral
evidence
which the
charged Government servant desired in
his written statement to be produced in
his defence...

No such procedure was followed by the
respondent before passing the order dated
20.02.2015 as neither it mentions any chargesheet containing article of charges are issued to
petitioner, nor it contains any reference to any
letter
asking
petitioner
to
submit
his
explanation. All that is stated is that petitioner
was required to tender apology by the board in
its emergent meeting held on 13.01.2015. In
the entire counter affidavit except for taking a
plea in paragraphs-20 and 23 that petitioner
was duty bound to follow the discipline and
discharged
duties
as
per
the
terms
of
appointment and that the concerned authority
had rightly dismissed the petitioner. Nothing
has been stated as to what procedure has
been followed, nor any document has
been annexed therewith from where it can
be inferred that any such procedure
contemplated u/Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules
was followed. (Para 10)

Hence, the order dated 20.02.2015 removing
the petitioner from employment is held to be
void ab initio. The appellate authority having
affirmed the order which was void ab initio has
also manifestly erred in law.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present
petition
assails
order/notice
dated 20.02.2015, whereby he has been
removed
from
employment
of
the
respondent's establishment with three
months' notice in advance and order
passed
by
the
appellate
authority
rejecting his appeal and affirming the
order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Tripathi,
learned Advocate holding brief of Shri
Alok Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner,
Shri Shekher Bandal, learned Advocate
appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 and
learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner before this Court is
aggrieved by the order/ notice dated
20.02.2015 whereby he has been removed
from employment of the respondent's
establishment with three months' notice in
advance. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the
order passed by the appellate authority
rejecting his appeal and affirming the order
passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. Briefly stated facts of this case are
that petitioner was initially appointed on
12.12.2007 on the post of Jamadar-cumsweeper in pay-scale as admissible to such
employees of a local body establishment,
however later on his services came to be
confirmed vide order dated 01.02.2009. It
appears
that
thereafter
taking
into
consideration the conduct of the petitioner
relating to the discipline at his end and
creating scenes in the establishment by
disobeying the commands of the higher
authorities and misbehaviour with the
colleagues, he was issued with some notice
dated 12.01.2015 and the board adopted a
resolution
in
the
emergent
meeting
convened
on
13.01.2015
asking
the
petitioner to tender his apologies fixing
19.02.2015. Since the petitioner, it appears,
failed to appear to tender his apology, the
board adopted a resolution to remove him
from employment with three months'
salary
in
advance
and
and
so
a
consequential
order
was
passed
on
20.02.2015.

4. Aggrieved by the said order,
petitioner questioned the decision taken by
the Chairman which got referred to the
District Level Scrutiny Committee and then
also filed an appeal before the appellate
9 All. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
authority,
namely,
the
Divisional
Commissioner, Aligarh on 30.12.2017
raising several issues including the legal
aspect that the order impugned was a mere
notice and so cannot be taken to be an order
of removal from service to be justified
within the legal framework of the U.P.
Nagar
Palika
Parishad
Employees
(Enquiry, Punishment and Removal) Rules,
1960, (Rules, 1960), however the appellate
authority affirmed the order passed by the
respondent local bodies under its order
dated 13.06.2018.

5. Assailing the orders Mr. Tripathi,
has raised the issued of legal propriety as to
the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings
at the end of the Municipal Board on the
ground that no such procedure as has been
conceived in law was followed, insofar as
the penalty in the nature of major action
like termination/ removal from service is
concerned. Mr. Tripathi, has further argued
that even going by Rules, 1960, the
respondents were to follow the procedure
as prescribed under the U.P. Government
Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
for the purposes of imposition a major
penalty upon the delinquent employee. Mr.
Tripathi, has also argued that looking to the
order impugned passed under the joint
signatures
of
Chairman
and
Chief
Executive Officer, it clearly transpires that
Board had only asked the petitioner to
tender his apologies on a particular date
and since the petitioner did not appear, they
proceeded to fire him. It is argued that in
the absence of any charge being levelled
and reduced into article of charge inviting
explanation from petitioner, this action of
the respondents is per se bad.

6. Per contra, Mr. Gangal appearing
for the local body concerned submits that
from the order impugned it clearly
transpires
that
the
petitioner
had
misbehaved and it was taken to be a serious
misconduct at the end of petitioner and,
therefore, the respondent proceeded to
remove him from employment. Mr. Gangal
also submitted that the authority has passed
the order in the light of the relevant
provisions as contained under Rules 1960
thus, he defends the order for the reason
assigned therein.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records, I find this much to be very clear
that relating to some misbehaviour and
disobedience shown at the end of petitioner
in office he was asked by the board to
appear and submit his apologies on or
before 19.02.2015 which the petitioner did
not as he failed to appear and resultantly
the respondent found it to be a case of gross
misconduct inviting penalty in the nature of
removal from service as per the Rules 11
and 12 of the 1960 Rules.

8. I have perused the 1960 Rules and I
find that except in case of temporary
employees of the establishment of a local
body no permanent/ confirmed employee
can be removed from service only on the
basis of a notice with three months salary
in advance. The Rule 12-A of Rules, 1960
itself contemplates that U.P. Government
Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999
as applicable. There is also a procedure
prescribed for placing the petitioner under
suspension during pending the disciplinary
proceedings.
Relevant
provisions
as
contained in Rule 11 and 12 of 1996 Rules
are reproduced hereunder:

"11. (1) ननयम्‌
9्‌
के्‌
उपबन्धों्‌
के्‌
अधीन्‌ रहते्‌ हुए, अस्थायी्‌ सेवक्‌ की्‌ सेवायें, या्‌
तो्‌
सेवक्‌
द्वारा्‌ सक्षम्‌
प्रागधकारी्‌
को्‌
अथवा्‌
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सक्षम्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ द्वारा्‌ सेवक्‌ को्‌ शलखखत्‌ रूप्‌
में्‌ ककसी्‌ भी्‌ समय्‌ नोदटस्‌ देकर्‌ समाप्त्‌ ककय्‌
जाने्‌ योग्य्‌ होंगी।

(2) या्‌
तो्‌
सक्षम्‌
प्रागधकारी्‌
द्वारा्‌
सेवक्‌ को्‌ या्‌ सेवक्‌ द्वारा्‌ सक्षम्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ को्‌
ऐसी्‌ नोदटस्‌ ददये्‌
जाने्‌ की्‌ अवगध्‌ एक्‌ माह्‌
होगी, परन्तु्‌ सेवक्‌ को्‌ सक्षम्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ द्वारा्‌
नोदटस्‌ की्‌ दशा्‌ में्‌ पश्चातवती्‌ नोदटस्‌ की्‌ पूणफ्‌
अथवा्‌ आांशशक्‌ अवगध्‌ को्‌ उसके्‌ बदले्‌ में्‌ वेतन्‌
से्‌ प्रनतस्थापपत्‌ कर्‌ सकेगी, परन्तु्‌ अग्रेतर्‌ कक्‌
सक्षम्‌ प्रागधकारी्‌ ककसी्‌ सेवक्‌ को्‌ त्रबना्‌ नोदटस्‌
के्‌ अथवा्‌ न्यून्‌ अवगध्‌ की्‌ नोदटस्‌ पर, सेवक्‌ से्‌
नोदटस्‌
के्‌
बदले्‌
ककसी्‌
शाजस्त्‌
का्‌
भुगतान्‌
करने्‌ की्‌ अपेक्षा्‌ ककये्‌ त्रबना, सेवा्‌ से्‌ मुक्त्‌ करने्‌
हेतु्‌ स्वतन्त्र्‌ होगा।

(3) इस्‌
ननयमावली्‌
में्‌
"अस्थायी्‌
सेवा"्‌
से्‌
नगर्‌
पाशलका्‌
पररिद््‌
में्‌
ककसी्‌
अस्थायी्‌ पद्‌ पर्‌ स्थानापन्न्‌ और्‌ मौशलक्‌ सेवा्‌
और्‌
ककसी्‌
स्थायी्‌
पद्‌
पर्‌
स्थानापन्न्‌
सेवा्‌
अशभप्रेत्‌ है।

(4) इस्‌ ननयमावली्‌ की्‌ कोई्‌ भी्‌ बात्‌
ननम्नशलखखत्‌ पर्‌ लागू्‌ नहीां्‌ होती-

(क)्‌ सांपवदा्‌ पर्‌ ननयोजजत्‌ सेवक,

(ख)्‌ ककसी्‌ नगर्‌ पाशलका्‌ पररिद््‌ के्‌
ननयोजन्‌ में्‌ पूणफकाशलक्‌ ननयोजन्‌ में्‌ न्‌ रहने्‌
वाले सेवक,

(ग)्‌ समागश्रत्‌ कोि्‌ से्‌ भुगतान्‌ ककये्‌
जाने्‌ वाले्‌ सेवक, तथा

(घ)्‌
कायफ-प्रभार्‌
सांस्थापन्‌
में्‌
ननयोजजत्‌ व्यजक्त।

12. (क) नगर पाललका पररर्द् की
सेिा में कोई सरकारी सेिक एतपश्चात
उपबजन्धत प्रकक्रया के अनुसरण के बबना न तो
दजण्डत ककया जायेगा न उसकी सेिायें समापत
की जायेंगी।

(ख)्‌ जब्‌ कोई्‌ नगर्‌ पाशलका्‌ पररिद््‌
प्रस्ताव्‌
पाररत्‌
करे्‌
कक्‌
उसके्‌
ननयोजन्‌
के्‌
अन्तगफत्‌ ककसी्‌ सरकारी्‌ सेवक्‌ के्‌ पवरुद्ध्‌ कोई्‌
अनुशासननक्‌ कायफवाही्‌ प्रारम्भ्‌ की्‌ जानी्‌ चादहए,
तो्‌
पररिद््‌
का्‌
अध्यक्ष्‌
प्रस्ताव्‌
की्‌
एक्‌
प्रनतशलपप, मामले्‌
की्‌
सुसांगत्‌
सामग्री्‌
और्‌
अशभलेख्‌ के्‌ साथ, सेिक सरकारी कमशचारी को
दजण्डत
करने
हेतु
सक्षम
प्राधधकारी
को
अग्रसाररत करेगा तथा ऐसा प्राधधकारी तत्पश्चात्
र्ासकीय सेिक (िगीकरण, तनयन्रण और
अपील) तनयमािली अथिा अधीनस्थ सेिा दण्ड
और
अपील
तनयमािली,
यथाजस्थतत
में
अन्तविशष्ट उपबन्धों के अनुसार आिश्यक
कायशिाही करेगा।"

(emphasis added)

9. Upon bare reading of the aforesaid
provisions, I find it to be a well laid rule
providing for a detailed procedure as per
the U.P. Government Servant Discipline
and Appeal Rules, 1999 to be followed for
inviting a penalty which is major in nature.
It has now, therefore, become relevant to
reproduce the Rules 7 of the 1999 Rules
which runs as under:

"7. Procedure for imposing major
penalties:-

Before
imposing
any
major
penalty on a Government servant, an
inquiry shall be held in the following
manner:

(i) The disciplinary authority may
himself inquire into the charges or appoint
any authority subordinate to him as Inquiry
Officer to inquire into the charges.
9 All. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663

(ii) The facts constituting the
misconduct on which it is proposed to take
action shall be reduced in the form of
definite charge or charges to be called
charge-sheet. The charge-sheet shall be
approved by the disciplinary authority:

Provided
that
where
the
appointing authority is Governor, the
charge-sheet may be approved by the
Principal Secretary or the Secretary, as the
case may be, of the concerned department.

(iii)The charges framed shall be
so precise and clear as to give sufficient
indication to the charged Government
servant of the facts and circumstances
against him. The proposed documentary
evidence and the name of the witnesses
proposed to prove the same alongwith oral
evidence, if any, shall be mentioned in the
charge-sheet.

(iv)The
charged
Government
servant shall be required to put in a written
statement of his defence in person on a
specified date which shall not be less than
15 days from the date of issue of chargesheet and to state whether he desires to
cross-examine any witness mentioned in the
charge-sheet and whether desires to give or
produce evidence in his defence. He shall
also be informed that in case he does not
appear or file the written statement on the
specified date, it will be presumed that he
has none to furnish and Inquiry Officer
shall proceed to complete the inquiry ex
parte.

(v)The charge-sheet, alongwith
the copy of the documentary evidences
mentioned therein and list of witnesses and
their statements, if any shall be served on
the
charged
Government
servant
personally or by registered post at the
address mentioned in the official records.
In case the charge-sheet could not be
served in aforesaid manner, the chargesheet shall be served by publication in a
daily newspaper having wide circulation :
Provided that where the documentary
evidence
is
voluminous,
instead
of
furnishing its copy with charge-sheet, the
charged Government servant shall be
permitted to inspect the same before the
Inquiry Officer.

(vi)Where
the
charged
Government servant appears and admits
the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall
submit his report to the disciplinary
authority on the basis of such admission.

(vii)Where
the
charged
Government servant denies the charges,
the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call
the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet
and record their oral evidence in presence
of the charged Government servant who
shall be given opportunity to crossexamine such witnesses. After recording
the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer
shall call and record the oral evidence
which the charged Government servant
desired in his written statement to be
produced in his defence :

Provided that the Inquiry Officer
may for reasons to be recorded in writing
refuse to call a witness.

(viii)The Inquiry Officer may
summon any witness to give evidence or
require any person to produce documents
before him in accordance with the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of
Attendance of Witnesses and Production of
Documents) Act, 1976.

(ix)The Inquiry Officer may ask
any question he pleases, at any time of any
witness or from person charged with a view
to discover the truth or to obtain proper
proof of facts relevant to charges.

(x)Where
the
charged
Government servant does not appear on the
date fixed in the inquiry or at any stage of
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the proceeding inspite of the service of the
notice on him or having knowledge of the
date, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed with
the inquiry ex parte. In such a case the
Inquiry Officer shall record the statement
of witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet
in absence of the charged Government
servant.

(xi)The disciplinary authority, if
it considers it necessary to do so, may, by
an order appoint a Government servant or
a legal practitioner, to be known as
"Presenting Officer" to present on its
behalf the case in support of the charge.

(xii)The Government servant may
take
the
assistance
of
any
other
Government servant to present the case on
his behalf but not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless the
Presenting
Officer
appointed
by
the
disciplinary
authority
is
a
legal
practitioner of the disciplinary authority
having regard to the circumstances of the
case so permits :

Provided that this rule shall not
apply in following cases :

(i)Where any major penalty is
imposed on a person on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction on
a criminal charge; or

(ii)Where
the
disciplinary
authority is satisfied that for reason to be
recorded by it in writing, that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry
in the manner provided in these rules; or

(iii)Where
the
Governor
is
satisfied that, in the interest of the security
of the State, it is not expedient to hold an
inquiry in the manner provided in these
rules."

(emphasis added)

10. Applying the above Rules to the
facts of the case, I find that no such
procedure was followed by the respondent
before passing the order dated 20.02.2015
as neither it mentions any charge-sheet
containing article of charges are issued to
petitioner, nor it contains any reference to
any letter asking petitioner to submit his
explanation. All that is stated is that
petitioner was required to tender apology
by the board in its emergent meeting held
on 13.01.2015. In the entire counter
affidavit except for taking a plea in
paragraphs-20 and 23 that petitioner was
duty bound to follow the discipline and
discharged duties as per the terms of
appointment
and
that
the
concerned
authority
had
rightly
dismissed
the
petitioner. Nothing has been stated as to
what procedure has been followed, nor any
document has been annexed therewith from
where it can be inferred that any such
procedure contemplated under Rule 7 of
the 1999 Rules was followed.

11. In view of the above, therefore, the
Court comes to the conclusion that the entire
procedure to remove the petitioner from
employment by order dated 20.02.2015 was
de hors the 1960 Rules and hence, the order
dated 20.02.2015 removing the petitioner
from employment is held to be void ab initio.
The appellate authority having affirmed the
order which was void ab initio has also
manifestly erred in law.

12. In view of the above, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

13. The order dated 20.02.2015 passed
by disciplinary authority as well as the
order dated 13.06.2018 passed by appellate
authority and the order dated 16.11.2018
affirming the order of the appellate
authority are hereby quashed.

14. Petitioner shall be reinstated in
service with effect from the date he had
9 All. The C/M, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
been removed and shall be paid his entire
arrears of salary and the current salary,
however, it will be remain open for the
respondent
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings as may be advised but, this
time strictly in accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 665
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 11437 of 2024

The C/M, Jubilee Sanskrit College Ballia &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nityodit Tripathi, Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri
R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Laxman Tripathi, Sri Shesh
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Anil Tiwari (Sr. Adv.)

A. Education Law - Maintainability - U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 - Section 68 -
A preliminary objection has been raised as to
the maintainability of the writ petition u/Article
226 of Constitution of India against the order
impugned dated 23.06.2024 passed by Vice
Chancellor as remedy lies u/s 68 of U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Act
of 1973') before the Chancellor.

Alternate remedy is not an absolute bar.
There is self-contained restriction upon the
Courts to entertain writ petitions in case there is
an statutory remedy available. Right from the
year 1958 till date, Hon'ble Apex Court had held
that writ petitions are maintainable u/Article
226, and the jurisdiction cannot be ousted
merely on the ground of alternative
remedy. (Para 10)
B. Three guiding principles where a writ
petition
can
be
entertained
and
alternative remedy will not operate as a
bar
are
for
the
enforcement
of
Fundamental Rights or where there has
been violation of principles of natural
justice or where the order or proceedings
are wholly without jurisdiction or vires of
Act is under challenge. (Para 26)

C. Difference between "entertainability"
and "maintainability" of writ petition -
Objection as to the "maintainability" goes
to the root of the matter and if such
objections were found to be of substance,
the courts would be rendered incapable of
even receiving the lis for adjudication. On
the
contrary,
the
question
of
"entertainability" is entirely within the
realm of discretion of the High Court, writ
remedy being discretionary. A writ petition
despite
being
maintainable
may
not
be
entertained by a Court for many reasons or
relief and could be refused to the petitioner,
despite setting up a sound legal point. Dismissal
of a writ petition by a High Court on the ground
that the petitioner has not availed
the
alternative remedy without, however, examining
whether an exceptional case has been made out
for such entertainment would not be proper.
(Para 27)

In the present case, it would be unjust to
relegate the matter to Chancellor u/s 68 of the
Act of 1973 as on four earlier occasions either
the fourth respondent or the petitioner has
assailed the orders passed by Vice Chancellor
and in the earlier round of litigation, similar
stands was taken by fourth respondent which
was repelled by the Court and the Vice
Chancellor proceeded to adjudicate the matter.
(Para 28)

Taking the same ground would be injustice and
unnecessarily dragging the matter. The dispute
raised is only as to the genuineness of
experience certificate and competence of issuing
authority/Principal is before this Court as well as
it was before the Vice Chancellor. (Para 29)

On the two occasions, the Vice Chancellor has
failed to address the real issue as to whether
the Principal was competent enough to issue