Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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