High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65134-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 344 of 2025 Appellant :- Dr Archana Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi,Tanuj Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 298 of 2025 Appellant :- Dr. Archana Gautam Respondent :- Committee Of Management Dr Anooplal Bansal Balika Inter College And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi,Tanuj Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Legal Reasoning
8. Law is well settled that when the resolution of the Managing Committee for grant of approval to the suspension order is placed before him the Inspector is required to examine the seriousness of charges as also the materials placed before him in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the suspension is justified in the facts and circumstances or not. It is well settled that Inspector at such stage does not determine the merits of the charges or the conclusions which may arise out of such proceedings. 9. The order passed by the Inspector disapproving the suspension has been perused by us. The Inspector has not only noticed the charges as also the reply of the suspended teacher but has thereafter returned a finding on the merits of the charges in respect of each of the allegations/charges made by the Managing Committee. The order passed by the Inspector clearly transgresses the limit of his jurisdiction. The Inspector, at this stage, is not required to adjudicate the merits of the charges nor he is required to return a finding on the guilt or otherwise of the teacher concerned. In the facts of the case, we find that the Inspector has completely gone beyond the scope of the proceedings under Section 16-G(7) of the Act of 1921. The Inspector has virtually acted like a disciplinary authority and has held whether the charges are made out or not. This would clearly be impermissible when the enquiry is still pending.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the Committee of Management of the institution concerned. Learned State counsel has been heard on behalf of the State authorities. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the two writ petitions out of which the present two appeals arise are taken on board, and are disposed of finally alongwith the two appeals. 3. The controversy relates to an action taken by the Committee of Management to suspend Dr. Archana Gautam, who was officiating as Principal of Dr. Anooplal Bansal Balika Inter College, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahr. The Committee of Management proceeded to place the appellant under suspension. The charges levelled against her included charges of defalcation of funds in the midday meal scheme etc. The service condition of the appellant are governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1921). Section 16-G(7) of the Act of 1921 provides that no such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days. Section 16-G(7) of the Act of 1921 is reproduced hereinafter:- "16-G [Conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees] (7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force more than sixty days form the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be, from the date of such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court." 4. The matter relating to grant of approval to the resolution of the Managing Committee to place the appellant under suspension was accorded consideration by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). DIOS by his order dated 25.1.2025 has disapproved the suspension. By the same order the Inspector also reverted the appellant to her original post of lecturer. This order came to be challenged by the appellant in Writ-A No.1601 of 2025. Since the suspension was disapproved, Committee of Management also filed its Writ-A No.3103 of 2025. Thus the order of Inspector is challenged both by the appellant as also by the Committee of Management. therefore, 5. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that once the suspension was disapproved there was no occasion for the Inspector to have reverted the petitioner to her substantive post. The Committee of Management, on the other hand, contended that the conclusions drawn by the Inspector to disallow approval is in teeth of the findings returned by the Inspector himself, wherein he has observed that charges against the suspended teacher was serious. 6. Learned Single Judge having heard both the petitions passed the order on 20.3.2025 staying the order of the DIOS dated 25.1.2025 and also directed the status with regard to working of the appellant to be maintained. To this extent the appellant is aggrieved and filed Special Appeal No.344 of 2025. 7. Insofar as the order of Inspector has been stayed the Committee of Management is also before us. Since the writ petitions and the two special appeals arise out of the same controversy and have been heard together, therefore, the two appeals as well as the two writ petitions are being disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
Decision
10. We therefore, find that the order of the Inspector clearly goes beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be sustained. We also find substance in the grievance raised by Dr. Archana Gautam that the limited issue available before the Inspector was the according of approval to the suspension itself. The direction issued in such proceedings to revert Dr. Archana Gautam to her substantive post is also not shown to be referable to Section 16-G(7) of the Act of 1921. In such view of the matter we hold that the order of the Inspector dated 25.1.2025 itself cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 25.1.2025, impugned in the writ petitions, are quashed. Both the writ petitions are consequently allowed. 11. The Inspector is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the scope of his jurisdiction settled in the Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Mau Aima, Allahabad and another vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, 2000 (4) ESC 2921. Such fresh decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks, from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 12. Since the period of two months has already expired, therefore, Dr. Archana Gautam will be reinstated in service and would also be entitled to her salary. It is, however, open for the Committee of Management to take work from her or not till a fresh order is passed by the Inspector. Both the special appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad