# Shishu Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27402 of 2006
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shishu-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40775
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921,
Section 16-G.(7)-approval of suspension
order-Principal of college-suspended by
the
management-papers
sent
for
approval-No order passed within 60 days
3All] Shishu Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1165
whether the D.I.O.S. empowered to
approve or disapprove even after expiry
of sixty days? Held-'yes'.

Held: Para 5

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear, that
the District Inspector of Schools was
competent to approve or disapprove the
suspension order even after the expiry of
60 days. Consequently, the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
bereft of merit. No other point was
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 (FB) relied on.

## Text

1164 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
cases provided for in the amended scheme
of May, 2002 in which as per clause 11
(A) (a) thereafter the Managing Director
& Group Executive (National Bank
Group) shall be competent authority for
approving
such
proposal
for
compassionate
appointment
in
cases
where a penalty for minor misconduct
was inflicted on the deceased employee. It
has been further submitted that as per
clause 11 (D) of the scheme, the
Executive of the Central Board would be
competent authority to give prior sanction
for appointment under the Scheme if
penalty
for
gross
misconduct
was
inflicted.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties at length and looked in to the
record of the case as well as the
authorities cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and I find that at the
time when the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on the death
of her deceased husband, the earlier
Scheme was applicable to the petitioner's
case and the amended Scheme came into
force from May, 2002. I am of the view
that the inapplicable provisions of the
clauses of the amended Scheme could not
be taken resort to by the respondents as a
ground to deprive/scuttle the rightful
benefits that accrue to the petitioner only
due to some charges of misconduct of the
deceased husband of the petitioner for
which he had already been penalized. No
past acts of misconduct of the employee
who dies in harness can be taken into
account while considering the case of a
family member for employment on
compassionate ground, as it is not a
benefit
provided
to
the
deceased
employee but for providing immediate
succor to its dependants to survive. The
decision
of
the
respondents
is
impermissible in the eye of law being in
violation of the principles of natural
justice.

8. In the result the petition succeeds
and is allowed and the impugned orders
dated
21.5.2001
and
16.7.2001
(Annexures No. 2 and 4 to the writ
petition) are hereby quashed. Accordingly
the respondents-Bank is directed to
provide an appointment to the petitioner
on compassionate ground on account of
the death of her husband, in accordance
with law and in terms of the earlier
Scheme, which was inforce at that time
within one month from the date a certified
copy of this order is placed before the
concerned
authority-respondent
Bank.
There will be no order as to costs.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27402 of 2006

Shishu Pal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Daya Shankar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921,
Section 16-G.(7)-approval of suspension
order-Principal of college-suspended by
the
management-papers
sent
for
approval-No order passed within 60 days
3All] Shishu Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1165
whether the D.I.O.S. empowered to
approve or disapprove even after expiry
of sixty days? Held-'yes'.

Held: Para 5

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear, that
the District Inspector of Schools was
competent to approve or disapprove the
suspension order even after the expiry of
60 days. Consequently, the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
bereft of merit. No other point was
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC 460 (FB) relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner is the Principal of
the College and was suspended on certain
charges by an order dated 27.3.2005. The
petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.37014
of 2005 praying for the payment of the
salary, on the ground, that the suspension
order had not been approved within the
stipulated
period
of
60
days,
as
contemplated under Section 16-G (7) of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The
Court by an order dated 5.5.2005 passed
an interim order which is quoted herein
under:-

"In the meantime, in case suspension
order dated 28.2.2005 has not been
approved, then respondents are directed to
ensure payment of salary to the petitioner
month by month along with teaching and
non-teaching staff of the institution."

2. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition for the quashing of
the orders dated 9.3.2006 and 11.3.2006
passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, whereby he has approved the
suspension order dated 27.2.2005.

3. Dr. Daya Shanker, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted, that
the suspension order, having not being
approved within the stipulated period of
60 days, became inoperative and the
suspension order came to an automatic
end, in view of Section 16-G(7) of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act and,
therefore the District Inspector of Schools
had
no
authority
to
approve
the
suspension order after the expiry of 60
days.

4. Sri V.K. Singh, the learned
counsel
for
the
Committee
of
Management submited that even after the
expiry of 60 days, the District Inspector of
Schools was empowered and competent
to approve or disapprove the order of
suspension. In support of his submission,
the learned counsel for the respondent has
relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of
this Court in Chandra Bhushan Misra
vs. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria
and others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 460, in
which the Full Bench answered the
reference as under:-

"An order of suspension of the Head
or a teacher of an Institution does not
lapse even if not approved by the
Inspector within sixty days from the date
of such order and it merely ceases to
operate and becomes effective again after
it is approved by the Inspector."

The Full Bench further held-

"In view of the provisions of subsection (7), an order of suspension of
Head or a teacher of an Institution shall
remain in force for a period of sixty days
from the date of such order even if it is
not approved in writing by the Inspector;
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
but in the absence of the approval by the
Inspector such an order will cease to
operate on expiry of sixty days from the
date of the order, although it will continue
to exist though inoperative. But if the
order of suspension is approved even after
the expiry of sixty days, it will come into
force again and will become effective
immediately on such approval. Any other
interpretation
will
lead
to
serious
consequences. Inaction on the part of the
Inspector either deliberate or otherwise
may frustrate the object of the provision
itself."

5. In view of the aforesaid, it is
clear, that the District Inspector of
Schools was competent to approve or
disapprove the suspension order even
after the expiry of 60 days. Consequently,
the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is bereft of merit. No other
point was raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.

6. It has come on record that there is
a lot of acrimony between the petitioner
and the Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Institution concerned.
From the record, it transpires, that the
petitioner was suspended on a variety of
charges on three occasions and on each
occasion the petitioner obtained an
interim order from the Court. Upon a
query being raised by the Court, Sri
V.K.Singh, the learned counsel for the
Manager
and
the
Committee
of
Management submitted, that no charge
sheet was issued on the suspension order
issued earlier and, that the charge-sheet,
pursuant to the suspension order dated
27.2.2005 had been issued on 10.4.2006
which the petitioner refused to accept. Dr.
Daya Shanker, on the other hand,
submitted that till date, no charge-sheet
has been served upon the petitioner and,
therefore, the question of refusal to accept
the charge sheet does not arise.

7. Be that as it may. In view of the
fact, that the suspension order has been
approved and a charge-sheet has been
issued, I direct the learned counsel for the
Committee of Management and the
Manager to serve a copy of the chargesheet upon the learned counsel for the
petitioner today, who in turn, will
handover or forward the copy to the
petitioner. The petitioner may file a reply
to
the
said
charge-sheet
within
a
reasonable period. Upon the receipt of the
reply, the Committee of Management may
proceed accordingly and complete the
inquiry and pass a final order within four
months from the date of the submission of
the reply to the charge-sheet.

8. The writ petition dismissed with
the aforesaid observation.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19260 of 2005

Shrawan Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Institutional Service Board and
others

 ...Respondents
Connected with:
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53585 of 2004

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri O.P. Singh