Decided on December 14,1988

Ananta Charan Tripathy Appellant
State of Orissa and Ors. Respondents


H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - (1.) THE Petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his suspension passed by the Managing Committee of Gulunagar High School (0. P. No. 4) where he was serving as the Headmaster. Undisputedly, the High School in question is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act 1969 (shortly stated the Act'). The order of suspension was served upon the Petitioner by a letter dated 10.6.1987 (Annexure -1) issued by the Secretary of the Managing Committee which was purported to be issued under the directions of the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack.III (O. P. No. 3) and that of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa (O. P. No. 2).
(2.) THE ground for putting the Petitioner under suspension was that he had indulged in serious mal -practice during the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987. In his petition, the Petitioner has controverted the allegation. But, for the short question that has been pressed into service by Mr. J. K. Rath in challenge of the order of suspension, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the allegations of misconduct or the like against the Petitioner.
(3.) THE stand of the Petitioner is that the order of suspension passed by the disciplinary authority be it either a Managing Committee or a Governing Body cannot remain in operation for a period of more than 30 days. The provision is contained in Rule 24 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of die Staff of Aided Educational Institutions Rules, 1974. It reads as follows: 21. Disciplinary authorities. (1) The Director may impose any of the penalties specified hi Rule 20 on any employee: Provided that the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the Managing Committee, of the Governing Body, as the case may be, refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against any employee. (2) Without prejudice to Sub -rule (1)' but subject to the provisions of sub -rules (3) and (4) any of the penalties specified in Rule 20' may be imposed (a) in respect of a lower grade employee, by the Headmaster or the principal, as the case may be and (b) 10 respect of any other employee by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body as the case may be ; Provided that in case of suspension of employees falling under Clauses (a) and (b) the prior approval of the Inspector in respect of an employee serving in a School and of the Director in relation to any other employee is obtained;, Provided further that the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be may place an employee under suspension at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of thirty days, pending approval of Inspector or the Director, as the case may be. (3) ... ...,.. (4) ... ... ... As the matter is short and, could be disposed of at the admission stage itself, time was allowed twice to the State counsel to take instruction on the question as to whether the order of suspension had been approved by the Inspector of Schools in terms of the second proviso to Rule 21 (2). Today, when the case was taken up, the learned Government Advocate took a different stand, and submitted, that since the order of suspension was passed in a contemplated departmental proceeding at the di reaction of the Inspector of Schools himself, the question 01 his approval did not arise. This submission was made on the basis of Rule 21 (1) read with its proviso.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.