Judgment · High Court · 2009

I have heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner s, Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the off icial respondents and Mr. M.U. Mondol, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6. The petitioners have averred that in a general meeting held on 1 0/8/2008 in the premises of the School, the petitioner No. 1 was elected for the post of President of its School Managing Committee proposed to be constituted f or the term 2008 to 2010. In the same proceeding the petitioner No. 2 was electe d as a Member thereof. The meeting adopted Resolution No. 2 to the said effect a nd the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara, respondent No. 4, by his order No. SSA/SMC6455 dated 7/11/2008 approved the constitution of the SMC has r esolved in the above meeting. According to the petitioners, after assuming charg e of the office, the Committee had been functioning efficiently being committed to the development and welfare of the School. In the process, a Bank Account in the name of the School was opened with the Pragjyotish Gaonlia Bank, Bilasipara Branch, (hereafter referred to as the Bank) with Account No. 2623/9 authorising the petitioner No. 1 and the Member Secretary/Headmaster to operate the same. Wh ile the matter rested at that, by the impugned order, the approval to the SMC wa s cancelled. The respondent No. 2, Director of Elementary Education, Assam, i n his affidavit has in essence pleaded that as per the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of the funds allocated to the schools, the Head Teacher thereof is re quired to obtain a resolution of the School Managing Committee to the said effec t to be counter signed by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. However in departu re therefrom, Shri Abdul Barik Pramnik, the Head Teacher of the school involved withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,66,330/- from the Bank on 3/11/2008. A booklet issue d by the Mission Director, Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, Guwahati, prescri bing the procedure of convening a meeting of the SMC for withdrawal of any fund earmarked for school development works also has been referred to. The answering respondent in addition to the imputation of gross violation of the Mission direc tives as above has expressed an apprehension of misappropriation of public funds . A complaint from the local public with regard to defaulcation of mid-day meal funds by the Head Teacher and an enquiry by the C.R.C.C., Nayer Alga, has also b een relied upon to contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the SMC was warranted. Though the respondent No. 6 has not filed any affidavit, he has projected his contentions in an interim application registered as MC 70/2009 wit h a prayer for vacation, alteration and/or modification of the interim restraint . According to this respondent, the constitution of the SMC has been in violatio n of the norms contained in the related notification dated 17/11/2006. The alleg ation of misappropriation of funds allotted to the School and anomalies of mid d ay meal scheme in collusion of the Member Secretary of the SMC has also been mad e by him. According to the answering respondent, the impugned order of cancellat ion was made after an enquiry on representations by the local public before the competent authority demanding action against the illegal activities of the Presi dent and Member Secretary of the Committee. Mr. Sharma has argued that the constitution of the SMC of the Sc hool having been effected in strict compliance of the norms prescribed therefor, the same was duly approved by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilashipa ra. Referring to the guidelines for the constitution, powers and functions of th e School Managing Committee of Government, Provincialized/ Recognised L.P., ME a nd MEM schools as contained in the notification No. AEE 522/2006/02 dated 17/6/2 006, the learned Counsel has urged that the same having provided a procedure for dissolution of a Committee formed thereunder, the impugned action being apparen tly in transgression thereof is nonest in law. As neither the Committee nor any Member thereof had been associated with any process leading to the impugned deci sion, the same is also violative of the principles of natural justice and is lia ble to be adjudged null and void. Mr. Goswami has urged on the basis of the official records that it being apparent that the School Managing Committee had been indulging in harmf ul activities in violation of the precepts of the Mission in the matter of withd rawal of school funds from the Bank as well as in matters relating to the mid da y meal scheme, the impugned order had to be passed in public interest and so no interference therewith is warranted. Endorsing the above, Mr. Mondol has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case as an enquiry had preceded the impugned action, th e plea of violation of the notification dated 17/6/2006 and unfairness in action is per se untenable. I have bestowed my consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments based thereon. That the SMC of the petitioners had been approved by th e Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilashipara, by his order dated 6/11/2008 is a matter of record. The constitution of the SMC, therefore, in terms of the g uidelines contained in the notification dated 17/11/2006 in view of this approva l ought to be at the first instance assumed. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the procedure for dissolution of such an SMC is as set out in Clause (E) of the aforementioned notification. Broadly speaking such a course of action is permis sible by an order of the jurisdictional Deputy Inspector of School/Block Element ary Education Officer on the face of a resolution to be adopted in a meeting of the parents and adult members of the village to the effect that the SMC had fail ed to discharge its duties and responsibilities effectively or has been inactive or indifferent in the matter of implementation of the schemes for the improveme nts of the School and the academic environment therein or following an enquiry i nto the complaints received from public or government officials regarding neglig ence of duties and responsibilities, non-compliance with Government orders, inst ructions and non-cooperative attitude towards the implementation of the schemes for the improvement of the school and academic environment thereof. The concerned Deputy Inspector of Schools or Block Elementary Education Officer on receiving a resolution as above is required to verify the fact that the meeti ng was actually held and that the signatures on the resolution are all of genuin e persons and on his satisfaction that it is so, he can pass an order of dissolu tion of the SMC without making any other enquiry into the grounds recorded in th e resolution. In case a complaint is received, the Deputy Inspector of Schools/Block Elementar y Education Officer concerned would be required to order or conduct a detailed e nquiry and on being satisfied on the authenticity of the allegations made, will have to pass a reasoned order regarding the dissolution of the SMC. A copy of ea ch of the order has to be forwarded to the Member Secretary of the SMC concerned and the District Mission Office. The official records being BOB/SMC/Court Case/ 7/2008-09 disclose (a) complaints against the Head Teacher of the School with re gard to the anomalies concerning the implementation of the mid day meal scheme e ven referring to admission of his lapses by him (Head Teacher) with an undertaki ng to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as fine as adopted in a village meet cond ucted in presence of the jurisdictional C.R.C.C., Nayeralga Cluster, SSA Bilasip ara, on 29/8/2008 and (b) a report dated 23/10/2009 of the said authority before the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara. No enquiry, however, as con templated by the guidelines seem to have been conducted on the allegations refer red to in the affidavit of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. A report by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara, submitted to the Directo r of Elementary Education Officer, Assam, on 10/12/2008 is however available on record pertaining to the alleged misappropriation of mid day meal funds by the H ead Teacher and also irregular withdrawal of funds from the Bank by him in absen ce of any resolution of the SMC to that effect. The booklet of the Assam Sarba S iksha Abhijan Mission laying down the procedure for withdrawal of funds from the accounts of the SMC is also on record. The records also do not disclose that a copy of the report on which eventually the impugned order has been passed was fo rwarded to the SMC as required under the guidelines. Moreover, the village assem bly pertaining to the allegation of defaultation of mid day meal fund and the re ports thereon dates prior to the approval of the SMC including the Head Teacher Abdul Barik Pramanik as the Secretary thereof. On a totality of the considerations as above and the revelations from the records, this Court is left with the impression that the essential pre conditions as set out in the procedure prescribed by the guidelines for dissolut ion of a SMC have not been adhered to as contemplated and intended. Be that as i t may, as allegations of anomalies involving public funds have been made, this C ourt considers it fit and proper to dispose of this proceeding with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to cause an enquiry to be made i nto the matter as required under the guidelines contained in the notification da ted 17/6/2006 and thereafter take a decision with regard to the dissolution or o therwise of the SMC involved. As the decision would have a bearing on the affair s of an academic institution, the process ordered should be completed as expedit iously as possible and in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. To secure fairness in the procedure, the author ity entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the enquiry would associate the parties interested therein. The above notwithstanding keeping in view the se riousness of the accusation made this Court is not inclined to interfere with th e impugned order which would have the effect of installing the petitioners’ SMC in office. It would be open for the Director of Elementary Education, if need be to make an alternative arrangement during interregnum. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.