Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 was obtained. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of termination be quashed on this ground alone. Since the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that no approval of the DIOS was obtained in the case of the petitioner, prior to terminating him from service, the other grounds sought to challenge the propriety of the impugned order is not considered." 21. It may again be pointed out that none of the aforesaid decisions took notice of the decision in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College, (supra). The same position was reiterated in the case of Committee of Management, St. Charles Inter College, Sardhana (supra) by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as contained in paragraph 12, which reads as follows:- "12. The next question is whether the management could dismiss a class IV employee without obtaining prior approval of the DIOS as provided in Chapter III, Regulation 31. Counsel for the petitioners argued that no prior approval of DIOS was required for dismissing a class IV employee. On the other hand Counsel for the respondent No. 2 urged that prior approval of DIOS was necessary. In the alternative the learned Counsel urged that in cases where prior approval of DIOS has not been obtained the class IV employee could prefer appeal before the management and representation before the DIOS. The argument is supported by a Single Judge decision of this Court in Daya Shanker Tiwari v. Principal, R.D.B.M. Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Neogaon, Mirzapur and others, 1998 (1) ESC 403 (All). The learned Single Judge held that the provisions of Regulation 31 read with Section 16-G (1) were applicable before dismissing a class IV employee. And prior approval of Inspector or Regional Inspectress was required to be obtained by the management. This decision was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Principal, Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 707. Therefore, since prior approval of DIOS was not obtained by the petitioners before dismissing the respondent No. 2, the DIOS rightly set aside the dismissal order." Another learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. District Inspector of Schools (supra) arrived at the same conclusion by holding as follows:- "7. It is settled law that the punishment can be awarded after prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Inspectress of Girls School. Since approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not been obtained, the decision of the Committee of Management is bad in law. It is submitted on behalf of respondents that Regulation 31 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Regulations while providing for prior approval in case of Class IV employees the said paragraph refers to all employees and there is no reason to exclude Class IV employees from the applicability of the said regulation. Subsequent paragraph of the Regulation 31 also refers to Class IV employee. This Court in the case of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College (supra) has held that prior approval in case of dismissal of
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1055 non-teaching staff is necessary and if such prior approval is not taken before termination of the services, the termination is illegal. The learned Single Judge in Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Principal, Smt. Ramwati Devi Beni Madho Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mirzapur and others, 1998 Lab IC 1252, has held that the provision of Regulation 31 read with Section 16-G (1) of the Act make it clear that in case of Class IV employees prior approval of Inspector or Regional Inspectress is necessary. This case has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court." 22. There is yet another decision of a learned Single Judge to the same effect in the case of Principal, P.N.V. Inter College, Chilli Hamirpur & another Vs. D.I.O.S. Hamirpur & another, (2007) 1 AWC 253. Thus, it can be seen that the decision in the case of Shankar Saran Vs. Vesli Inter College (supra), which was delivered on 3rd March, 1991, there was no detailed discussion on the various provisions of the Act and a conclusion was drawn on the strength of Regulation 31 only to the effect that prior approval was required. The latter decisions from Daya Shankar Tewari's case (supra) onwards, upon a discussion of the relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that prior approval was required, but as pointed out hereinabove, none of the said decisions took notice of the decision in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College, (supra). 23. The decisions, which hold that no such prior approval is required begin with the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra), wherein a learned Single Judge drew the following conclusion: "9. Regulations 35 to 44-A provide the manner in which enquiry is to be conducted. In case the enquiry is not conducted against the delinquent employee, any order awarding punishment will be illegal. In case all the procedures were followed, the order of punishment imposed by the authority concerned cannot be set aside. The District Inspector of Schools has not recorded any finding that the enquiry officer or the Principal did not follow the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry and in giving opportunity of hearing before awarding punishment. The disciplinary proceedings against a Class IV employee of the institution is in the nature of domestic enquiry. If the disciplinary authority, after holding the enquiry, in a fair manner, comes to the conclusion on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record that the charges against the delinquent employee is proved, the Committee of Management on appeal being filed can re-appraise the evidence and can come to different conclusion. The aggrieved employee is given right of making representation against the decision of the Committee of Management given in appeal. The power given to the District Inspector of Schools is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction. He can set aside the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority of the Committee of Management when it is either perverse or based on no material evidence or certain material evidence has been ignored. He has further to examine whether procedure prescribed for holding the enquiry was followed and it was fair and impartial enquiry. He has, however,
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 31 and 32: 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 81: 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?