MANAGING COMMITTEE, RANIHAT HIGH SCHOOL AND ORS. Vs. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, CIRCLE-I AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS before us are the Managing Committee of Ranihat High School, an aided educational institution within the meaning of Orissa Education Act of 1969, and the members constituting the Committee. Opposite party No. 2 was serving as an assistant teacher under the School. The Managing Committee at its meeting held on 29 -8 -1976 resolved to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the said teacher and pending investigation into the charges to be framed in the proceeding, it directed that the teacher may be suspended from the employment. On the authority of the resolution in Annexure -1, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School communicated the formal order under Annexure -2 dated 13 -9 -1976. On being approached by opposite party No. 2, the Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 1, passed an order in terms of Annexure -3 declaring the order of suspension and void and requiring the School to allow the opposite party No. 2 to continue in his post. The Inspector of Schools was asked to review his order on several grounds and when he declined to interfere, this writ application has been filed for quashing his order annulling the suspension and restoring opposite party No. 2 to service. It is contended on behalf of the management of the School that the stand of the Inspector of Schools is not tenable and the order is bad in law.

(2.) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affidavits, but at the hearing of this application, counsel for the Opposite party No. 2 does not appear. In the counter affidavit of the Inspector of Schools, reliance has been placed in support of his order on Rule 21 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of teachers and members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners contends that the said Rule has no application at all to the facts of this case and on the basis that every employer is entitled to keep delinquent employee off duty pending investigation of misconduct, the management was justified in suspending the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Inspector of Schools and no authority to intervene. In support of this stand reference has been made to Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules and we think it appropriate to extract both the Rules as far as relevant to see whether the contention is justified.

(3.) WE are also inclined to agree with Mr. Mohanty that when the Inspector of Schools passed the order it was appropriate that the management of the School was heard. In fact, if this hearing had been given in the instant case, there would have been no occasion for the writ application to be filed because the management would have been in a position to point out that there was another view available to be considered and if the present stand of the management had been before the Inspector of Schools, he would not have made the order by taking a wrong view of the situation. Even when the management approached the Inspector he stuck to his earlier view without affording any opportunity to the management of being head. If on this occasion he had done it there would have been no occasion to stick to a view which is erroneous. Public Officers are expected to exercise their powers in keeping with the spirit of the law and we are sorry to find that the Inspector of schools took an one -sided view without affording an opportunity to the management to place its case before him.