# The Chief Post Master v. Mohd. Salim and another

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-05-23
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-chief-post-master-v-mohd-salim-and-another-39330
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
244
State Government to vacate the official accommodation in their
possession on their transfer or retirement within the period
prescribed by the Rules or if there are no such Rules then within
three months of the date of retirement or transfer, failing which they
will be evicted by police force.

With these observations the petition is disposed of finally.

Let the Registrar of this Court send a copy of this judgment to
the Central and State government through the Secretary of the
Department concerned so that this judgment is strictly complied with
in future and this practice of retaining official accommodation even
after transfer/retirement is stopped.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG RWKHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 6KUL 3UDNDVK 3DGLD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
6KUL $. 3DQGH\
6KUL -3 6LQJK

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2WKH RUGHU RI VXVSHQVLRQ
SDVVHG DJDLQVW WKH KHDG RI LQVWLWXWLRQ LV VXEMHFW WR WKH VXSHUYLVLRQ
E\ ',26 WKH SHWLWLRQHU PD\ DYDLO WKH UHPHG\ EHIRUH WKH ',26

By the Court

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 9.7.1999 Annexure 20 to the writ
petition and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from
interfering in the affairs of the institution in question and directing
the respondent no. 1 to pass a speaking order regarding its approval
1999
------
The Chief Post
Master
 Vs.
Mohd. Salim
and another
------
M. Katju, J.
D.R.
Chaudhary, J.
1999
------
August, 25
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
245
in respect of the suspension order of respondent no.2 dated
15.2.1999.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The dispute relates to Janta Inter College, Bazar Gosai,
Harraiyya, Azamgarh which is a recognised Intermediate college
receiving grant-in-aid. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is alleged that
the last election was held in June 1997 and the petitioner no.2 was
elected as Manager and his signature was attested by the District
Inspector of Schools. Against that two writ petitions were filed in
this court by Sheo Shankar Singh claiming to be lawfully elected by
the Manager in the institution in question. The petition were
dismissed by a learned Single Judge (vide Annexure 3 to the
petition) and the committee of management of the petitioner was
recognised by the learned Single Judge and the signature of the
petitioner no.2 was attested by the District Inspector of Schools.
Against that judgement a special appeal no.153 of 1999 was filed by
Shiv Shankar Singh which was admitted and an interim order was
passed that no policy decision would be taken by the Manager
without the concurrence of the District Inspector of Schools. True
copy of the order dated 25.2.1999 is Annexure 4 to the petition.
Another special appeal no.265 of 1999 was filed which is also
pending in this Court. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is alleged that
in view of the G.O. dated 3.2.1997 the committee of management
passed a resolution on 3.8.1997 in which meeting the respondent
no.2 participated and it was resolved that the account by way of
development fund would not be operated by the Principal alone but
jointly alongwith the manager. In paragraph 8 it is alleged that
despite this resolution the respondent no.2 operated the development
fund account singly and a huge amount of the same fund has been
embezzled. In this connection various letters were sent to various
authorities concerned copies of which are Annexure 5, 6 and 7 to the
writ petition. True Copy of the Audit report dated 27.2.99 is
Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is
alleged that the Joint Director of Education wrote to the District
Inspector of Schools vide letter 23.4.1999 directing that the amount
of development fund withdrawn by the respondent no.2 should be
directed to be deposited back with the Government fund. True copy
of the said letter is Annexure9. The District Inspector of Schools also
passed an order directing the petitioner to recover the amount
illegally withdrawn by the respondent no.2 from the development
fund. True copy of the said letter is Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
1999
------
C/M and
others
 Vs.
D.I.O.S. and
others
------
M. Katju, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
246
In paragraph 12 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner no.2
immediately wrote a letter dated 2.5.1999 to the respondent no.2
asking him to return the amount illegally withdrawn from the
development fund which is more than rupees one lac. True copy of
the said letter is Annexure 11 to the petition. However, no amount
was returned back by respondent no.2. Thereafter the D.I.O.S. by the
order dated 19.5.1999 gave permission to take disciplinary
proceeding against the respondent no.2 for the amount illegally
withdrawn and embezzled. True copy of the said letter is Annexure
12. The committee of management then passed a resolution dated
23.5.1999 suspending the respondent no.2 vide Annexure 13 to the
writ petition. The petitioner passed an order dated 23.5.1999 in
pursuance of the resolution of the committee of management
suspending the respondent no.2. True copy of the suspension order
dated 23.5.1999 is Annexure 12 to the writ petition.

In paragraph 16 of the petition it is alleged that the papers
were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval of the
suspension order but no orders have been passed by the District
Inspector of Schools. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been issued to
the respondent no. 2 vide Annexure 15 to the writ petition. True
copy of the letter to the committee of management and District
Inspector of Schools dated 16.6.1999 alleging collusion between the
Banking authority and respondent no. 2 and forgery is Annexure 16
to the petition.

In paragraph 20 of the petition it is alleged that against the
order dated 23.5.1999 respondent no. 2 filed writ petition no. 22636
of 1999 but no interim order has been granted and the petition is
pending. In paragraph 21 it is alleged that the orders were passed
by the respondent no. 1 District Inspector of Schools dated
19.5.1999 by which the petitioner was given permission to act
against the respondent no. 2 for not depositing the amount illegally
withdrawn from the development fund. True copy of the said letter
is Annexure 17 to the writ petition. Against the order writ petition
no. 24991 of 1999 was filed and an exparte interim order dated
16.6.1999 has been passed by this court. True copy of the said roder
is Annexure 18 of the writ petition. In pursuance of this court order
dated 16.6.1999 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order
dated 1.7.1999 vide Annexure 19. Subsequently the impugned order
dated 9.7.1999 was passed by which it was directed that the
respondent no. 2 will work as Principal in view of the interim order
1999
------
C/M and
others
 Vs.
D.I.O.S. and
others
------
M. Katju, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
247
dated 16.6.1999. True copy of the said order is Annexure 20 to the
writ petition.

In paragraph 26 it is stated that the District Inspector of
Schools has not yet taken any decision in the matter and it is alleged
that this was deliberate so that after sixty days of suspension the
Principal may claim reinstatement as per the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act and Regulations. In paragraph 29 it is alleged that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order. In paragraph 32 it is alleged that very serious
allegation of embezzlement of development of fund has been made
against the respondent no.2.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2. In
paragraph 3 it is alleged that the petitioner was a rank trespasser and
not a member of the General Body. In paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit it is alleged that the G.O. dated 3.2.1997 is against the
regulations. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that there is no illegality and
irregularity in the operation of the account. The details of the same
have been given in the said paragraph. In paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit it stated that the answering respondent is not aware about
any audit inspection. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the petitioner has
misinterpreted the order of the Joint Director. The Joint Director only
directed the District Inspector of Schools to look into the matter and
make an enquiry and if it was found that the respondent no.2 has
illegally withdrawn any amount he be directed to deposit the same. It
is alleged that the District Inspector of Schools has not made any
enquiry. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the order dated 1.5.1999 was
passed without enquiry or notice to respondent no.2. In paragraph 10
it is alleged that there was no illegal withdrawal and mis-utilisation
of the account. The amount withdrawn has been utilised in the
construction of the building and other development activity.
Photostat copy of the cash-book in this connection is Annexure
C.A.3. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the order dated 19.5.1999
passed by the District Inspector of Schools is illegal as no
opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no.2 before
passing the said order. In paragraph 12 it is alleged that the
respondent no.2 has been suspended without any basis. In paragraph
23 it is stated that the respondent no.2 is working as ad hoc Principal
since 1994 and has claimed regularisation. In paragraph 30 it is
alleged that the charges levelled against the respondent no.2 are
baseless and false.

1999
------
C/M and
others
 Vs.
D.I.O.S. and
others
------
M. Katju, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
248

In the rejoinder affidavit the allegations in the counter
affidavit are denied and those in the writ petition are reiterated. In
paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit it is alleged that the respondent
no.2 was not empowered or authorised to utilise the development
fund. It is stated that the alleged payment is farzi and incorrect.

In Govind Swarup Pandey Vs. The Authorised Controller
1981 UPLBEC 17 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the
order of suspension passed against the Head of the Institution is
subject to supervision by the District Inspector Schools and in that
petition it was held that the petitioner was directed to avail of the
alternative remedy before the District Inspector of Schools.

In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion
that the petitioner should approach the District Inspector of Schools
who will himself hold an enquiry against the respondent no. 2
regarding alleged illegal withdrawal and misutilisation of the
development fund and the District Inspector of Schools after hearing
the Committee of Management and others concerned as well as the
respondent no. 2 shall pass appropriate orders in relation to the same
preferably within six weeks of production of a certified copy of this
order in accordance with law. If the petitioner files a certified copy
of this order before the District Inspector of Schools within two
weeks from the date of this judgment the status quo on the post of
Principal shall be maintained till the completion of enquiry by the
District Inspector of Schools.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'7+
7+$SULO
$SULO
%()25(
%()25(
+21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
+21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
+21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ -
+21·%/( 5. 6,1*+ -
&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
&KKLGGD .KDQ
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH 2I 83 $QG 2WKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 $PDU 1DWK %KDUJDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6&
1999
------
C/M and
others
 Vs.
D.I.O.S. and
others
------
M. Katju, J.
1999
------
April, 6