Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 of Schools, Kushinagar and others, Reported in [2006 (3) ESC 1765 (All)(DB)]. 15. In the case of Shankar Saran (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that an order of dismissal passed against a class IV employee without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools, is illegal. Relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid case reads as follows: "13- blds vfrfjDr vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr cuk;s fu;eksa ds v/;k;&3 ds fofu;e 31 ds vk/kkj ij ;kph dh lsok;sa fcuk ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dh iwoZ vuqefr ds lekIr fd;k tkuk Hkh iw.kZr;k voS/kkfud FkkA iwjs rF;ksa ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izcU/k lfefr vkSj iz/kkukpk;Z us kksj :i ls vuqfpr n`f"Vdks.k ;kph ds lEcU/k esa viuk;k vkSj ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd vkSj iz/kkukpk;Z us ;kph dks voS/kkfud :i ls ckgj j[kkA" 16. A more detailed and exhaustive consideration is found in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra), wherein the learned Single Judge concluded as follows: "8. While considering the aforesaid contention, I find that sub-section (3) of Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 clearly provides for approval of Inspector in case of discharge, removal, dismissal from service, reduction in rank diminution in emoluments and termination of service but this provision only makes reference of Principal, Headmaster and teachers and no categorical reference of Class-IV employee has been made therein. But subsection (1) of Section 16-G provides that the condition of service of every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by Regulations. Therefore, Statute permits framing of Regulations providing conditions of service every person employed and therefore, this includes Class-IV employees also. Regulation 31 of Chapter-III of the Regulations so framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provides for prior approval in case of certain punishments including termination. Regulation 100 of the said Regulations though does not categorically make Regulation 31 applicable in case of Class-IV employees but it also does not categorically exclude Regulation 31 from its applicability to Class-IV employees. Therefore, the only provisions of Regulation 31 indicates its scope of applicability. It is true that first paragraph of Regulation 31 while providing for prior approval in case of some punishment, does not refer to Class-IV employees specially but the said first paragraph providing for prior approval refers to all employees and there is no reason to presume exclusion of Class-IV employees from the applicability of the said Regulation. The subsequent paragraphs in Regulation 31 clearly refer to Class-IV employees." 17. A perusal of the said decision indicates that the Court came to the conclusion that even though Regulation 100 does not categorically apply Regulation 31, yet it also does not exclude the same. Further, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 11 found that Regulation 37, which provides for sending of a report, limits the same in respect of Class-IV employees to be sent to the appointing authority instead of the Inspector and nothing more, which is quoted below: "11. A perusal of Regulations 36 and 37 of the said Regulations indicate that they provide for procedure in respect of
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1053 disciplinary proceeding. Proviso to Regulation 37 only excludes Class-IV employees to the extent the said Regulation 37 requires sending of the report and the recommendation to the District Inspector of Schools for approval making it clear that the said entire proceedings relating to Class-IV employees are to be performed by the appointing authority. This has been done as in respect of Class-IV employees the appointing authority is the Principal whereas in respect of teachers the appointing authority is committee of management and Regulation 37 provides for sending of report and recommendation of the Enquiry Officer to committee of management which was to consider the same and take a decision and then to send the entire record to the Inspector for his approval. Therefore, proviso to Regulation 37 was required making it clear that for Class-IV employees ending of papers to the Inspector was to be made by the Principal, being the appointing authority and in this case papers were not to be sent by the committee of management which is not the appointing authority." 18. For ready reference, at this juncture, we may record that even though there was a decision to the contrary in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra), the same appears to have not been noticed in the judgment of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra), which was rendered at later point of time. 19. The decision in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra) came to be considered by a Division Bench in the case of Principal, Rastriya Inter College, (supra) and the Division Bench affirmed the decision of Daya Shankar Tewari's (supra) case, with an approval in paragraph 4 and 5, which is as follows:- "4. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Aloke Chakrabarti, J.) in Daya Shankar Tewari Vs. Principal and others, (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1101, has held that such prior approval is necessary. The learned Single Judge has gone into the matter in great detail and has examined the relevant provisions in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as well as Regulations 31 and 100 of the Regulations made under the aforesaid Act. 5. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge in Daya Shankar Tewari's case. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Magadh Ram Yadav v. Dy. Director of Education and others, 1979 ALJ 1351, which is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is in our opinion not applicable as it has not considered Regulations 31 and 100 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Regulation." 20. A learned Single Judge of this Court followed the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra) in the decision of Sita Ram Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, [2000 (3) E.S.C. 1880 (All.)] and held as follows : "6. Now there is no escape from the in holding that prior approval of the DIOS is essential in awarding punishment of termination, dismissal etc. of Class-IV employee. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that approval was not required because petitioner was a Class-IV employee, is not acceptable. It is not disputed by the respondents that no approval of the DIOS prior to his termination by the Principal
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14:
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24:
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26:
3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28:
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 29 and 30: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 79: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?