Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 Vesli Inter College (supra), the learned Single Judge has merely recorded conclusions without discussing the impact of the provisions, and it appears that no such issues were raised therein to contradict the opinion of the requirement of a prior sanction. The decision in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra), which was rendered in the year 1998, unfortunately did not take notice of the decision in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra), which had been rendered way back in 1994 itself. The decision in the case of Principal Shitladin Inter College (supra), in our opinion, has correctly construed the provisions and we accordingly, approve the same. 69. Unfortunately, the Division Bench judgment in the case of Principal Rashtriya Inter College (supra), which approved the decision in the case of Daya Shankar Tewari (supra) also did not notice the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra). The same was religiously followed in the subsequent decisions in the case of Sita Ram (supra) as well as in the decision of Ram Khelawan Maurya Vs. District Inspector of Schools (supra). 70. On the other hand, the Division Bench decision in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari (supra) also did not take notice of the earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Rashtriya Inter College (supra) and while holding that no prior approval/sanction is required, the said Division Bench also appears to have not been apprised of the decision in the case of Principal Shitladin Inter College (supra). The other decision in the case of Swami Vivekanand Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya (supra), in our opinion, does not dwell upon the controversy presently involved and does not contain any discussion on the issue raised in the present matter, as such a reference to the said decision by the learned counsel is of no assistance in resolving the present dispute. As noticed above, the Court has come across the Division Bench decision in Pujari Yadav (supra), which has substantially answered the question referred before us and having taken notice of the same, we fully approve the view taken therein. 71. In view of the conclusions, as drawn hereinabove, we are respectfully unable to agree with the view expressed in Daya Shankar Tiwari's case as upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Principal Rastriya Inter College (supra) and followed later on in the decisions of learned Single Judges referred to hereinabove. 72. We approve the view taken in the case of Principal, Shitladin Inter College (supra), the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari (supra) and the decision in the case of Pujari Yadav (supra) as laying down the correct law. 73. Our answer to the questions referred to us are as under : (i) For awarding a punishment as enumerated under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to a Class-IV employee of a institution recognized under the aforesaid Act, no prior approval or sanction from the Inspector of Schools is required. (ii) The Division Bench judgments in the case of Ali Ahmad Ansari Vs. District
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P. and another 1071 Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar [2006(3) ESC 1765 (All)] and Pujari Yadav Vs. Ram Briksh Yadav [2006(65) ALR 767] lay down the correct law in contradistinction to the Division Bench judgment of Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj And Others [(2000) 1 UPLBEC 707] and the other judgments to that effect. The reference is answered accordingly. 74. Let the papers be placed before the learned Single Judges before whom the writ petitions are pending to proceed with the matter in the light of the answers given by us in the present reference. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J. THE HON’BLE RAN VIJAY SINGH, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7751 of 2009 Matloob Gaur …Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi Sri Suneet Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Devendra Kumar S.C. U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam 1916- Section 48 (2) (b) Removal of chairman of Nagar Panchayat burden of Proof wrongly shifted upon petitionersallegations not fall within the meaning of misconduct- No concern with the duty discharged by petitioner-held- order of removal- illegal Held: Para 19 On the aforesaid discussion we find that the State Government not only wrongly placed the burden of proof of the charges on the petitioner to be disproved by him, but also failed to discuss the evidence led by the petitioner. The charge No.1 had no concern with the misconduct and did not fall in any of the grounds given in Section 48 (2) (b) and that charge No.2 was wholly vague and was not related to the duties performed by the petitioner. The third and fourth charge, were also not proved against the petitioner. Case law discussed: 2005(3) AWC 2818, 2000(3) ESC 1611(All), 2005(4) AWC 3563. (Delivered by Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.) 1. Heard Shri Kesari Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Suneet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. Shri Devendra Kumar has entered caveat for the Administrator and Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, Kithore, Distt. Meerut. 2. Shri Matloob Gaur, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Kithore, Distt. Meerut in November, 2006. A notice dated 5.2.2008 was issued to him by the State Government on 5th February, 2008 and was served upon him by the District Magistrate, Meerut by his letter dated 8.2.2008 to show cause as to why he should not be remove from the post of the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat under Section 4 (2) (b) (ii), (iv), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xvii) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The notice also contained an
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:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 47 and 48: 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 97: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 101 and 102: 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?