Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 no jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the order of dismissal from service was otherwise illegal as before passing the order of dismissal no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was taken as provided under Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the Act had been amended by Notification No. 7/562/5-8 (Board, September 1974) Allahabad dated 10th March, 1975 issued in pursuance to the approval of the State Government contained in G.O. No. 789(1)-15/(7) 75 dated March 1, 1975 and by the amendment so brought specific provisions have been made pertaining to appointment, disciplinary proceedings, appeal etc. in so far as Class IV employees are concerned. Amendment to Regulation 31 lays down power to appoint, punish and further provides for the appellate authority to hear appeals against punishment imposed and procedure for disposal of appeal and against the said appeal a further representation has been provided to the District Inspector of Schools, Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools concerned. The said Regulation is extracted hereunder. "31& deZpkfj;ksa dks izk;% n.M] ftlds fy, fujh{kd vFkok e.Myh; fujhf{kdk dh iwoZ Lohd`fr vko';d gksxh] fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdlh ,d :i ls gks ldrh gS%& ¼d½ i`FkDdj.k vFkok izeqfDrA ¼[k½ Js.kh esa voufrA ¼x½ ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dehA prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa dks mijksDr dksbZ n.M nsus gsrq iz/kkukpk;Z vFkok iz/kkuk/;fidk l{ke gksxkA l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk n.M fn;s tkus dh n'kk esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk izca/k lfefr dks vihy dh tk ldsxhA ;g vihy n.M lwfpr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj izLrqr gks tkuh pkfg, vkSj ml ij izca/k&lfefr }kjk fu.kZ; dj vihy dh izkfIr frfFk ls vf/kdre N% ekg ds Hkhrj ns fn;k tk;sxkA leLr vko';d vfHkys[kksa ij fopkj djus ,oa deZpkjh dks] ;fn og izca/k lfefr ds le{k Lo;a mifLFkr gksuk pkgs] lquokbZ ds i'pkr izca/k&lfefr vihy ij fu.kZ; nsxhA prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dks ;g Hkh vf/kdkj gksxk fd mldh vihy ij fd;s x;s izca/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ds fo:) og ftyk fon~;ky; fujh{kd e.Myh; ckfydk fon~;ky; fujhf{kdk dks] fu.kZ; lwfpr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj lE;kosnu dj ldsxkA fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gksxk fd ;fn izca/k lfefr mi;qZDr fu/kkZfjr N% lIrkg dh vof/k ds Hkhrj viuk fu.kZ; mijksDr vihy ij u ns rks lEcaf/kr deZpkjh viuk vH;kosnu lh/ks ftyk fon~;ky; fujh{kd e.Myh; ckfydk fon~;ky; fujhf{kdk dks mijksDr N% lIrkg dh vof/k chr tkus ij ns ldrk gSA ftyk fon~;ky; fujh{kd e.Myh; ckfydk fon~;ky; fujhf{kdk }kjk mijksDr vH;kosnu ij vH;kosnu dh izkfIr dh frfFk ls vf/kdre rhu ekg ds Hkhrj fu.kZ; ns fn;k tk;sxk vkSj ;g fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA vH;kosnu ds izLrqrhdj.k] fopkj ,oa fu.kZ; ds laca/k esa vko';d ifjorZu ds lkFk bl v/;k; ds fofu;e 86 ls 92 ykxw gksxsA" 24. Regulation 100 of Chapter III inserted by the said Notification Regulations 1, 4 to 8, 10, 11, 15, 24 to 26, 30, 32 to 34, 36 to 38, 40 to 43, 45 to 52, 66, 67, 70 to 73 and 76 to 82 with necessary modifications have been made applicable in the case of Class IV employee. Unamended Regulation 31 has not been applicable. 25. From a reading of amended Regulation 31 it is clear that as far as employees who are employed by Committee of Management a different procedure has been prescribed but as regards Class IV employees, different procedure has been prescribed before passing an order of punishment. In case of an employee other than Class IV employee it is Committee of Management who has to impose punishment and such punishment cannot be made without prior
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.State of U.P. and others 1057 approval of the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools concerned. But in a case of Class IV employee the imposition of punishment is made by the Principal or the Headmaster of the institution concerned and against the said order an appeal is maintainable before the Committee of Management of the institution within a prescribed time and after the dismissal of appeal by the management a right to make further representation has been given within a prescribed time. The procedure for disposal of representation by the District Inspector of Schools is to be made in accordance with Regulations 86 and 98 of the Regulations framed under the Act. 26. This provision clearly makes distinction in the manner of imposition of punishment. In case of Class IV employees no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is required. In case, the intention of the Legislature had been to obtain prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools before imposition of penalty, the right of appeal could have not been given to the Management and thereafter a further right to make representation to the District Inspector of Schools. 27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Karni, Faizabad vs. District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad and others, 1981 U.P.L.B.E.C. 135, wherein it was held that prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is to be obtained to the decision of the Committee of Management to award punishment. It was a case of Class III employee and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Brij Raj Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools and other, 1988 UPLBEC 123, it was held that if the order of termination is passed in violation of Regulations 35 and 36 in terminating the services of a Class IV employee the same cannot be upheld. The court did not hold that prior approval was necessary even in Class IV employees' services. In Shankar Sharan vs. Waslee Inter College, 1991(2) ALR 1, it was held that if the services of Class IV employee is terminated without giving opportunity of hearing it is liable to be quashed. The decision was mainly based on the facts of the case." 28. The other decision, which has been cited at the Bar in support of the said proposition is that of Swami Vivekanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Unnao and another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Unnao and another, 1998 (3) A.W.C. 1940 (L.B.). We are not referring to any paragraph of the said judgment, as in our opinion, the same is not a case directly for the proposition as advanced before us as we shall explain it later on. 29. The Division Bench decision, on the basis whereof the conflict has been referred to be resolved by us, is the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar and others (supra), where the Division Bench after having traced the various provisions held as follows: "8. Although the opening words of Regulation 31 provides that punishment to employee requires prior sanction from the District Inspector of Schools or
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:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34: 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 83: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?