TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ARMY SCHOOL HEMPUR, DISTRICT UDHAM SINGH NAGAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-41
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 27,2013

TRILOCHAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Committee Of Management, Army School Hempur, District Udham Singh Nagar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner was appointed in Army School, Hempur, District Udham Singh Nagar as Physical Training Instructor on 31.10.1980. Services of the petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 28.10.1991. On 19.3.1998, a First Information Report was got registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302, 364, 201 IPC with P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner was arrested in connection with the FIR/Case Crime No. 159 of 1998 on 26.3.1998 and was ultimately released on bail on 3.5.1998. Petitioner thereafter gave joining in the school on 8.5.1998. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.7.1998. It seems, thereafter, Major C.S. Rathour conducted preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his report on 5.9.1998. A show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 12.9.1998 calling his explanations on several charges, including the charge that due to registration of First Information Report against the petitioner, the name and prestige of the school was tarnished. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on the charges on 3.10.1998. Thereafter, impugned order dated 21.10.1998 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) Initially writ petition was dismissed on the ground that respondent is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable against the respondents. Petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012 before the Division Bench, which was allowed vide judgment dated 14.5.2013. Division Bench of this Court has held that writ petition is very well maintainable and respondents fall within the definition of State.;


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