# The Committee of Management Vidya Bhawan Inter College, Araul, Kanpur Nagar and another v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 143
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-08-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-committee-of-management-vidya-bhawan-inter-college-araul-kanpur-nagar-and-40807
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section 16 (g) (1) read with U.P. Act No.
5
of
1982-Section
21-Suspension
pending
enquiry-Charges
of
embezzlement-management
send
proposal for approval-in the meantime
disciplinary
proceeding
concludedpunishment of dismissal-D.I.O.S. failed
to refer the matter to the secondary
Education
Services
selection
Boardhence writ petition by managementheld-after expiry of 60 days-suspension
order became inoperative-hence entitled
for salary during suspension period till
the final decision of Board.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In the facts of the case, there is no order
of
District
Inspector
of
Schools
approving
the
suspension
of
the
Principal of the institution. Consequently
the order of suspension passed by the
Committee of Management ceases to
exist in the eyes of law after expiry of 60
days of its being communicated and
therefore, the principal of the institution
becomes entitled for full salar for the
period subsequents to expiry of 60 days
form the date he was placed under
suspension. Accordingly it is provided
that the principal of the institution shall
be entitled to his full salary for the
period the order of suspension was nonexistent in the-eyes of law i.e. 28th
August, 2005 till the conclusion of the
proceedings
by
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
directed herein above.

Till such decision by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
aforesaid, the Principal of the institution
shall be entitled to his full salary, it shall
be
open
to
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution to take
work or not to take work of the post of
principal from the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC-460
1992 (2) UPLBEC-132
1994 (23) ALR-334
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

## Text

1 All] Zamir Ahmad Khan and others V. A.D.J., Bulandshahr and others
143
the question of comparative hardship due
to facum of possession of one shop by the
landlords in vacant position during
pendency of suit proceedings.

4. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed. Judgment and
order dated 24.7.2001 passed by the
respondent no. 1 (Annexure 7 to the writ
petition) is quashed. The respondent will
vacate the shop, in dispute, within a
month from today. In case, the shop is not
vacated by the respondent within the
stipulated period of one month from
today, the petitioner-landlord will be at
liberty to evict him with the aid of local
Police force. No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39621 of 2006

The Committee of Management Vidya
Bhawan Inter College, Araul, Kanpur
Nagar and another
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.K. Ojha
Sri Satyanshu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.K. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section 16 (g) (1) read with U.P. Act No.
5
of
1982-Section
21-Suspension
pending
enquiry-Charges
of
embezzlement-management
send
proposal for approval-in the meantime
disciplinary
proceeding
concludedpunishment of dismissal-D.I.O.S. failed
to refer the matter to the secondary
Education
Services
selection
Boardhence writ petition by managementheld-after expiry of 60 days-suspension
order became inoperative-hence entitled
for salary during suspension period till
the final decision of Board.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In the facts of the case, there is no order
of
District
Inspector
of
Schools
approving
the
suspension
of
the
Principal of the institution. Consequently
the order of suspension passed by the
Committee of Management ceases to
exist in the eyes of law after expiry of 60
days of its being communicated and
therefore, the principal of the institution
becomes entitled for full salar for the
period subsequents to expiry of 60 days
form the date he was placed under
suspension. Accordingly it is provided
that the principal of the institution shall
be entitled to his full salary for the
period the order of suspension was nonexistent in the-eyes of law i.e. 28th
August, 2005 till the conclusion of the
proceedings
by
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
directed herein above.

Till such decision by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
aforesaid, the Principal of the institution
shall be entitled to his full salary, it shall
be
open
to
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution to take
work or not to take work of the post of
principal from the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC-460
1992 (2) UPLBEC-132
1994 (23) ALR-334
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The suspension of the Principal of
the recognised intermediate college on the
charge of embezzlement etc., has been
engaging the attention of this Court time
and again and at present two writ petitions
are pending in respect of the same.

3. Facts in short relevant for these
petitions
are:
the
Committee
of
Management vide resolution dated 29th
June, 2005 resolved to suspend the
Principal of the institution pending
enquiry
into
charges
of
financial
embezzlement etc. The District Inspector
of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, in exercise of
powers under Section 16 (g) (7) of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
disapproved the said order of suspension
vide order dated 2200 July, 2005. The
order so passed by the District Inspector
of Schools was challenged by the
Committee of Management by means of
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52780 of
2005. The writ petition was allowed vide
judgment and order dated 29th July, 2005
and this Court required the District
Inspector of Schools to reconsider the
matter in light of the observations made in
the judgment.

4. The District Inspector of Schools,
in compliance of the judgment and order
of this Court, passed an order dated 18th
November, 2005, wherein he again
disapproved the order of suspension
passed by the Committee of Management.
The order so passed by the District
Inspector of Schools has been challenged
by means of first writ petition, (Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005),
by the Committee of Management. In this
petition after hearing the parties, the
Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court was
pleased to stay the operation of the order
passed by the District Inspector of
Schools dated 18th November, ZOOS and
provided that the District Inspector of
Schools may pass afresh order in
accordance with law and in light of the
directions issued by this Court under
judgment and order dated 29th July, 2005
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
52780 of 2005 after affording opportunity
of hearing to the parties concerned.

5. While the aforesaid writ petition
was still pending, the District Inspector of
Schools by means of the order dated
15/17th July, 2006 has again disapproved
the order of suspension passed by the
Committee of Management referred to
above. It is against this order of the
District Inspector of Schools that the
second writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 39621 of 2006) has been
filed by the Committee of Management.

6. It has been further stated that the
departmental proceedings initiated against
the Principal of the institution have
already been completed. A resolution has
been passed proposing the punishment of
dismissal of service by the Committee of
Management, this resolution has been
transmitted
to
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection
Board,
Allahabad, with all records, in view of the
Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982
for approval of the punishment proposed
as early as on 5th November, 2005
through the office of the District Inspector
of Schools. An advance copy of the
proposal was also submitted before the U.
P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board for appropriate action.
1 All] The C/M, V.B. Inter College & others V. State of U.P. and others
145
7. On record, are the letters dated
15th February, 2006 and dated 3rd July,
2006 forwarded by the Secretary, U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board, Allahabad requiring the District
Inspector of Schools to transmit the
original
documents,
as
have
been
submitted
by
the
Committee
of
Management
qua
the
punishment
proposed along with other relevant
documents, as required under U.P. Act
No.5 of 1982.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that because of lapse on the part of
the District Inspector of Schools, the said
documents have not been transmitted by
the District Inspector of Schools to U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board, as a result whereof, no decision
qua the punishment proposed, could be
taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further contends that the impugned order
passed by the District Inspector of
Schools is based on same grounds, as
were subject matter of consideration in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of
2005, wherein an interim order has
already been granted by this Court dated
25th November, 2005.

9. Even otherwise, it is submitted
that the departmental proceedings against
the Principal of the institution have
already been completed and only approval
of the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Selection Board, Allahabad is wanted, it
would not be fair to restore back the
Principal of the institution in the office,
inasmuch as the charges of embezzlement
have
been
found
proved
in
the
departmental enquiry.

10. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar
Srivastava, on behalf of Principal of the
institution, however, submits that the
entire proceedings against the Principal
are mala fide. At the first instance, the
Committee of Management was not
agreeable
to
the
appointment
of
respondent (Principal), He was forced to
file a writ petition for the same which
resulted in his appointment as officiating
principal. On after short period of his
appointment, he has been placed under
suspension and departmental proceedings
have been initiated only to ensure that he
is kept out of office.

11. Learned Counsel for the
Principal further submits that the mala
fide are apparent from the record of writ
petitions. Violation of Regulation 36 (1)
(g) and Regulation 40 (a) is established,
inasmuch as the petitioner was placed
under suspension under order dated 1st
July, 2005, while a copy of the charges
had admittedly been served upon the
Principal only on 11th July, 2005 i.e. after
expiry of the prescribed period of 7 days
and therefore, no illegality can be
attributed to the order passed by the
District Inspector of Schools.

12. Lastly it is further contended on
behalf of the principal of the institution
that the charge-sheet as served upon the
petitioner was vague and did not contain
specific charges therefore, violation of
Regulation 36 (1) (g), is also apparent.

13. I have heard counsel for the
parties and have gone through the records
of the writ petition.

14. There is serious disputes
between the parties with regard to the
proceedings, which have been taken
against the Principal of the institution.
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Issues are of fact as well as of law. It is
apparent
that
the
departmental
proceedings, which have been initiated
against the petitioner, have now reached
their end and are engaging the attention of
the U.P. Secondary Education Services
Selection Board with regard to the grant
of approval to the punishment proposed
by the Committee of Management. There
are charges of misappropriation of money
etc. found proved in departmental enquiry
against the Principal of the institution
(this Court is not expressing any opinion
on the merits of the allegations so made).
It is further not in dispute that the
Principal of the institution has continued
under suspension since 2005, has been
kept out of office of Principal since 29th
June, 2005 (although according to the
petitioner the same was contrary to law).

15. In these set of facts, this Court is
not inclined to enter into the merits of the
rival contentions qua the order revoking
the suspension of the Principal of the
institution, inasmuch as interest of justice
would be served, if the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board is
required to take the final decision on
proposed punishment of the Committee of
Management, in a time bound manner
after affording opportunity of hearing to
the parties.

16. Accordingly, it is provided that
the District Inspector of Schools shall
transmit all relevant records received
from the Committee of Management qua
the proposed punishment against the
Principal of the institution within ten days
of the receipt of the certified copy of this
order, to the U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board. Immediately
after receipt of the papers, U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board shall
fix a date for affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties and for filing their
respective representations/documents. He
shall also permit the exchange of
documents.

17. The U.P. Secondary Education
Services Selection Board shall take final
decision in the matter in accordance with
law, by means of a reasoned speaking
order. The entire exercise as aforesaid
must be completed by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board on or
before 3rd October, 2006. No unnecessary
adjournment shall be granted to any of the
parties and there should not be a cause for
any complaint being made by any of the
parties that the order passed today has not
been complied with either by the District
Inspector of Schools or by the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board.

18. This leads us to the issue as to
whether the Principal of the institution
would be entitled to his full salary for the
back period commencing from the date 60
days expired from the date the order of
suspension was passed in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

19. Section 16(g) (1) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act provides that
no order of suspension shall remain in
operation after expiry of 60 days, except
when approved in writing by the District
Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid
Section 16 (g) (1) has been subject matter
of consideration in the Full Bench
Judgement of this Court reported in 1995
(1) UPLBEC 460 in the case of Chandra
Bhushan Mishra Vs. District Inspector of
Schools & Others. The Full Bench of this
Court has held that if the order of
suspension has not~been approved within
1 All] U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad V. Shyam Sundar and others
147
60 days or refused approval in writing, it
would mean that such order of suspension
ceases to exist in eyes of law after expiry
of 60 days. Full Bench of this Court
further held that the power of the District
Inspector of Schools to approve such
suspension after 60 days is not lost.
However,
if
approval
is
granted
subsequently by the District Inspector of
Schools, the suspension would revive
from the date the approval is granted.
Meaning thereby that for the interregnum
i.e. the period between the date when 60
days expired and the date approval is
granted in writing, it is presumed that the
order of suspension was not existing in
the eye of law. Accordingly for this
interregnum period Principal or teacher
cornered is entitled to payment of full
salary as well as for being permitted to
continue in the office.

20. The legal position in that regard
has also been explained by the Court in
the judgment reported in 1992 (2)
UPLBEC 132 and 1994 (23) ALR 334.

21. In the facts of the case, there is
no order of District Inspector of Schools
approving the suspension of the Principal
of the institution. Consequently the order
of suspension passed by the Committee of
Management ceases to exist in the eyes of
law after expiry of 60 days of its being
communicated and therefore, the principal
of the institution becomes entitled for full
salar for the period subsequents to expiry
of 60 days form the date he was placed
under suspension. Accordingly it is
provided that the principal of the
institution shall be entitled to his full
salary for the period the order of
suspension was non-existent in the-eyes
of law i.e. 28th August, 2005 till the
conclusion of the proceedings by the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board as directed herein above.

22. Till such decision by the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board as aforesaid, the Principal of the
institution shall be entitled to his full
salary, it shall be open to the Committee
of Management of the institution to take
work or not to take work of the post of
principal from the petitioner.

23.

With
the
aforesaid
directions/observations, both the writ
petitions are disposed of finally.
Petition Disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

First Appeal No. 851 of 1992

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

...Opposite Party/Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sundar and others

...Opposite Party/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Singhal
Sri V.K. Barman
Sri Pankaj Barman

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Faujdar Rai
Sri C.K. Rai

Land Acquisition Act, 1989, Section 23
(1)-Compensation-referance
court
awarded Rs.50,000/- towards damagewithout discussion of evidence-held not
proper-only
after
satisfactory
proof
incurred expences-on account of change