S R. Singh, J. - (1.) ISMAIL Girls National Inter College, situate at Old Tahsil Meerut (in short 'college') before its upgradation to "Inter College" in 1977, was recognised as Higher Secondary School known as ISMAIL Girls Higher Secondary School, Old Tahsil, Meerut. The College is run by a society known as Mohd. ISMAIL Girls Association and the same is managed by a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration approved under section 16-A of the U P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')
(2.) PETITIONER Smt Shamim Zafar was appointed as Head Mistress of the Institution with effect from 1-7-1966, by means of the letter dated 30-6-1966 and confirmed as such with effect from 1-7-1967. Upon the institution being upgraded to Inter College, the petitioner was appointed as its principal. She was dismissed from service vide letter dated 12/14-1-91 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) issued in pursuance of the resolution passed in this regard by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 12-1-1991. Dismissal was made operative from an anterior date i.e. 14-9-90 on which date the petitioner was placed under suspension. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order of her dismissal dated 12/14-1-1991 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) and for a direction commanding the respondents to treat her in continuous service and pay to her the entire salary. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition in short, are to the effect that the petitioner, as stated above, was suspended by order dated 14-9-90 A charge-sheet dated 6-10-tO was issued under the signatures of Sri S. A. Razi Convenor Mohd. lliyas and Mohd. Omar Alvi, two members of the Sub-committee allegedly constituted for purposes of holding enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the decision of the Committee of Management allegedly taken in its meeting held on 13-9-90. The charges in the charge-sheet may be summed up as below : (i) That the petitioner made unauthorised realisation of fees amounting to Rs. 43,690/- from the students through class teachers of the college between 1988-89 and July and August 1990 in contravention of section 7-C which was punishable under section 7-D of the Act (vide charges 1 to 4). (ii) That the petitioner appointed one Sri Ram Chander as part-time Mali for which there was no provision in the Act and regulations made thereunder and realised Rs. 25/- from each student from July 1986 to May 1990 and the Mali was paid at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. This realisation from the students too is said to be unauthorised in view of section 7-C and punishable u/Sec. 7-D of the Act (vide charge no. 5). (iii) That the petitioner illegally Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management, 1990 0 ALJ 911 appointed her own nephew Sri Shahab Zafar as a clerk in the college in contravention of Regulation 99 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the Act and illegally sanctioned his medical and earned leaves which power vests in the Manager of the college and not in the principal and further that with a view to concealing the information about Sri Shahab Zafar being absent from duty, the petitioner conspired and manipulated records with a view to enable, him to draw his salary (in all amounting to Rs. 36,37542) which was illegal and she was responsible for all these illegalities, irregularities and manipulated in records (vide charge no. 6). (iv) That the petitioner illegally terminated the services of a Class IV employee Bhagwati whose suit for damages was decreed by the Civil Court at appellate stage and decree for a sum of Rs. 37,200.00 was passed in her favour on the ground that her termination was arbitrary and suffered from the vice of malafide. This according to charge no. 7 was a gross misconduct resulting in pecuniary loss to the institution ; and (v) That the petitioner was guilty of gross insubordination in that she had been disobeying the orders of the Manager as mentioned in charge no. 8. Although there is a dispute as to the service of the charge-sheet together with its enclosures upon the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner submitted her reply to the charges framed against her vide letter dated 22-10-1990 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). In her reply, the petitioner challenged the validity of the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 13-9-1990 pursuant to which decision to commence disciplinary proceeding against her was taken. In her reply she also remonstrated to the effect that no preliminary enquiry was held before embarking upon disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It was also pleaded by her that the charge-sheet was not issued with the approval of the Committee of Management. The petitioner challenged the validity of her suspension as also commencement of disciplinary proceedings against her and asserted her right to cross-examine the witnesses and inspect other records proposed to be used against her. She also claimed protection of section 16G of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder. As to the charge of realisation of certain amount other than the prescribed fee from the students as mentioned in charges 1 to 5, the petitioner's defence was that certain amount was collected from the students pursuant to resolutions passed by parent-teachers Association (in short P.T.A.) in its annual meetings and the expenditures of such collection too were made on the basis of such resolutions. In this regard, the petitioner further placed in her reply that the provisions of section 7-C were not attracted in respect of activities of parent-teachers Association, of which she was the Ex- officio patron. In respect of the charge as to the appointment of her nephew, the petitioner stated in para 7 of her reply that she had in fact, opposed the appointment of Sri Shahab Zafar on the ground that he was related to her and that she did not participate in the selection of Sri Shahab Zafar. According to the petitioner, she was directed by the Manager, Sri Saifuddin himself who had personal relations with the District Inspector of School Ghaziabad, to allow Sri Shahab Zafar to continue on the rolls of the Staff of the college. According to the petitioner, whatever facilities were made available and payments made to Sri Shahab Zafar were so given at the behest of the Manager, Sri Saifuddin himself and the responsibility, if any for the payment of salary of Sri Shahab Zafar was being illegally fastened to her. As regards the charge of insubordination and non-obedience of the orders of the manager as mentioned in charge no. 8, the petitioner in her reply dated 22-10-90 stated that she would cross-examine the witnesses and inspect the records in original which the Management proposed to rely" upon against her in support of the charge. The petitioner in her reply, submitted a list of witnesses, whom she proposed to examine in support of her case. However, the reply of the petitioner dated 22-10-90 seems to be completely and conspicuously silent about the charge No. 7, which was to the effect that the petitioner had illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of a class 4 employee Smt. Bhagwati who filed a suit in the Civil Court for damages which was decreed by the appellate court awarding a decree for a sum of Rs. 37200/- in her favour and against the defendants namely the principal and the Management Committee of the college.
(3.) THE Enquiry Committee submitted its report dated 4-1-91 on the basis of which the petitioner, by means of the letter dated 4-1-91, was informed that the Committee of Management would meet on 12-1-91 at about 2 p.m. in the principal's chamber/office to consider the enquiry report. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee be not accepted and the punishment awarded accordingly. It was made clear that the petitioner may file her reply in writing and may also appear before the Committee to put forth her defence orally or in writing. A copy of the Enquiry report was also made available to the petitioner alongwith the said letter dated 4-1-1991. It transpires form the record that the petitioner received the show cause notice on 10-1-91 but earlier to that, she had come to know through a notice in a local daily 'Amar Ujala' dated 7-1-91 of the proposed meeting of the Committee of Management to consider the report of the Enquiry Committee and she also claims to have sent her reply to show cause notice by a registered letter dated 10-1-91. She, however,' appeared personally before the Managing Committee and submitted her reply dated 12-11-91, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 10. The Managing Committee in its meeting dated 12-1-91 arrived at a decision to dismiss the petitioner from service in accordance with the recommendations made by the Enquiry Committee with effect from the date of her suspension, namely 14-9-90 i.e. with retrospective effect. The petitioner was accordingly let known by letter dated 12/14-1-91 annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition, of the decision. The validity of the order contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 14-9-90 is under challenge in the instant petition.;