V.K.Shukla - (1.) THE Committee of Management of Acharya Raghubir Inter College, Kanpur Nagar through its manager, Dr. Arvind Dixit, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of decision dated 30.8.2010 taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, proceeding to disapprove the suspension of Hari Prakash Tiwari as Principal of the said College, with a further direction to ensure payment of entire remuneration.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case, as disclosed from the record, is that in the district of Kanpur Nagar, there is a recognized institution known as Acharya Raghubir Inter College, Kanpur Nagar. Affairs of the said institution are being run and managed as per provisions of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. Said institution in question is not at all on grant-in-aid list of the State Government, as such provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are not at all applicable to the said institution. The institution in question has been accorded VITT VIHIN recognition in terms of Section 7A of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921. In the said institution Hari Prakash Tiwari was appointed as its Principal in the year 1990; he has been functioning in the said capacity and salary was being ensured to him from the resources generated by the Committee of Management of the institution. The Committee of Management took over the charge in the year 2008; allegation of the Committee of Management was that the Principal of the institution at no point of time had been cooperating and at all point of time he flouted the directives issued by the Committee of Management. In such a situation and in this background, the Committee of Management resolved to place Hari Prakash Tiwari under suspension on 25.5.2009. Charge sheet dated 8.6.2009 was served on Hari Prakash Tiwari, reply to which was submitted by him on 27.7.2009. It appears that, as nothing was being done by the Committee of Management after placing him under suspension, Hari Prakash Tiwari preferred writ petition No. 67648 of 2009. This Court on 11.12.2009 asked the District Inspector of Schools to look into the matter and take appropriate decision. The District Inspector of Schools, thereafter, took the proceedings and on 30.8.2010 proceeded to pass order revoking the suspension on the ground of lack of authority to pass the order of suspension and further directed for ensuring payment of salary. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, appearing for Hari Prakash Tiwari, at the very outset, contended that his client does not intend to file any counter affidavit and on the basis of arguments advanced, writ petition be heard and disposed of, as issue involved involved in present case is one of the jurisdiction, which requires no pleadings, whatsoever. in such a situation and in this background, present writ petition is being finally heard and disposed of with the consent of parties. Learned standing counsel also consented to this proposal. Sri Ashok Mehta, Advocate contended with vehemence that appointment of Hari Prakash Tiwari had been made following the provisions as contained under Section 7AA of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, in such a situation and in this background, the Committee of Management of the institution in question had got absolute authority to place the incumbent under suspension, and the District Inspector of Schools has got no authority to set aside the aforementioned order on the ground that under the Government Order dated 10.8.2001 there is no authority to place the incumbent under suspension, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, countered the said submission by contending that the provisions of Section 16G (7) of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921 are fully applicable and as suspension order has not been approved within sixty days, as such by operation of law, said suspension order became non-existent; in such a situation and in this background, the order which has been passed, requires no interference by this Court. Coupled with this, it has also been sought to be contended that the power of suspension has been misused in the present case as even the amount due has not been paid, and further even after submission of reply to the charge sheet not even a single step has been taken up to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and to bring the same to its logical end, as such writ petition, in the facts of the case, deserves to be dismissed. Learned standing counsel contended before this Court that since both the contesting parties have argued the matter, the issue being legal one, same be answered accordingly.;