Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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