R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) RAMESH Chandra Jauhari, respondent no. 2 was employed in Rajendra Prasad Intermediate College Meerganj, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the College) as a clerk. Committee of Management of the college initially on 7-10-1979 suspended the respondent no. 2 and thereafter his services were terminated. The order terminating the services of the respondent no. 2 was submitted by the Management to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter refeerrd to as the DIOS) for approval. The DIOS vide order dated 21st April 1980 returned the papers on the ground that while suspending the respondent no 2 the Manngement has not complied with sub-section (6) (7) and (8) of section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act and DIOS as such, did not approve the order of termination of the service. By another order dated 23-5-80, DIOS directed for single operation of the accounts of the college under section 5 of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner who claims to be the Committee of Management of the college has filed this writ petition against the aforesaid two orders dated 21-4-80 and 23-5-80.
(2.) THIS court on 15-9-80 granted an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 23-5-80 passed by the DIOS for single operation of the account. So far as the other order dated 21-4-80 whereby order of termination of the service of respondent no. 2 was not approved, this court did not grant any stay order with the result that order of termination of service of respondent no. 2 was not an effective order and he continued to be in service. Dios vide order dated 21-4-80 refused to accord approval to the termination of service of respondent no. 2 on the ground that sub-section (6), (7) and (8) of section 16~G of the Intermediate Education Act were not complied with while suspending him. The order of termination cannot be vitiated merely because the order of suspension was passed in violation of certain statutory provisions. Dios was required by regulation 44-A of Chapter III framed under Intermediate Education Act to consider the relevant factors and thereafter to grant or not to grant the approval to the order of termination. In this case this was not done and in our opinion the order dated 21-4-80 suffers from this infirmity. But in view of the fact that aforesaid order dated 21-4-80 has remained in operation for last about eight years and respondent no. 2 continued to be in service during all this period we are not inclined to interfere with this order in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because by lapse of time it will be unfair and unjust to unsettle the career of respondent no. 2 after such a long time. So far as the second order dated 23-5-80 is concerned, the DIOS has directed for single operation of the account of the college for indefinite period under section 5 of the Payment of Salaries Act. Single operation of the account can be ordered only in the case referred to in the proviso to sub section (2) or where a difficulty arises in disbursement of salary due to any default of the management. The ground on which the order dated 23-5-80 for single operation of the account of the College was passed by DIOS was that the Manager of the College has not signed the cutting in the pay bill of the respondent no. 2 for the month of April 1980 inspite of the request for signing the cutting/overwriting. There are no averments in the impugned order to the effect that there is a difficulty in disbursement of salary to the respondent no. 2 or other members of the staff. The pay for the month of April 1980 was required to be paid in the month of May. As the salary for the month of April was required to be paid in May 1980 there was no justification for passing the order for single operation in the month of May 1980 itself. This order of the DIOS is hasty and arbitrary order. It is also clear from the persual of the order and the pleading of the parties that requisite opportunity of being heard was not given by the DIOS to the Management before ordering the single operation of the account. This order of DIOS as such is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly partly allowed and the order dated 23-5-80 passed by the DIOS is set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.;