Om Prakash - (1.) PETITIONERS seek quashing of the order dated 20-8-1990 (Annexure "3" to the writ petition) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr (for short "D.I.O.S."), respondent no. 1, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner no. 2 as Principal of the Sarvodaya Intermediate College, Banboi, Bulandshahr.
(2.) THE back-drop of the impugned order dated 20-8-1990 (Annexure "3" to the writ petition) is that the respondent no. 2, who was the Principal of the aforesaid College, was suspended by the order dated 17-7-1990 (Annexure "I" to the writ petition) by Sri Surendra Singh, the then Manager of the Committee of Management. THEreafter he addressed a letter dated 18-7-1990 to D.I.O.S. informing him that in place of the respondent no. 2, who was suspended, the petitioner no 2 being the senior lecturer was appointed as acting Principal to attend to the urgent matters and requesting him to attest the signatures of the petitioner no. 2. THE D.I.O.S. by the order dated 23-7-1990 passed on the letter dated 18-7-90 (Annexure "2") itself attested the signatures of the petitioner no. 2 clearly stating that such attestation was done only for the purpose of Board's fee and Transfer Certificates. THEreafter by the impugned order dated 20-8-1990 (Annexure "3" to the writ petition), the D.I.O.S. cancelled the attestation with immediate effect. The submission of Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that by the order dated 23-7-1990 passed on the letter Annexure "2", the suspension of the respondent no. 2 would be deemed to have been approved by the D.I.O.S. and by the impugned order (Annexure "3" to the writ petition) the approval deemed to have been accorded by the order dated 23-7-90 cannot be cancelled or evoked. It is urged by him that the impugned order dated 20-8-1990 is nothing but a deemed disapproval of the deemed approval dated 23-7-1990 (Annexure "2"). To elaborate his submissions Sri Srivastava submits that if no approval , is given by the D.I.O.S., then the suspension order would become inoperative only after the expiry of 60 days within the meaning of sub-section (7) of Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (briefly, 'the Act, 1921') and that by the impugned order statutory period of 60 days cannot be curtailed. In short has submission is that the impugned order having been passed within 60 days is illegal and that approval once given cannot be revoked by a non-speaking order and the impugned order being the one stands vitiated on that ground as well. There is yet another submission to assail the validity of the impugned order that it was passed at the behest of one Sri Jeet Singh, who not being validly elected as Manager was merely a stranger. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order having been passed at the instance of a stranger in vitiated in law. The submission of Sri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, is that the suspension order (Annexure "1" to the writ petition) was never approved by the respondent no. 1 and, therefore, that ceased to operate on the expiry of 60 days under sub-section (7; of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921. He further submits that the law does not contemplate deemed approval of suspension order and that the deemed approval, if any, being no apporoval in the eye of law is not required to be set aside by the D.I.O.S. at any stage and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure "3" to the writ petition) cannot be construed as deemed disapproval of the order dated 23-7-1990 passed on the letter Annexure "2". He submits that signatures of the petitioner no. 2 were attested on the request of the Mananer, Sri Surendra Singh, for a limited purpose and limited period and that the D.I.O.S. was at liberty to cancel that ad hoc arrangement at any time.
(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the suspension order (Annexure "1" to the writ petition) was ever approved by the D.I.O.S. Subsection (6) of Section 16-G of the Act, 1921, so far as material, states: where any head of the institution or teacher is suspended by the Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within seven days from the date of the order of suspension and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and accompany all relevant documents. Sub-section (7) of Section 16-G says that no such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than 60 days from the date of such order. Sub-section (8) states that if at any time the Inspector is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings against the head of the institution or teacher are being delayed for no fault of him, the Inspector may, after affording an opportunity to the Management to make representations, revoke an order of suspension passed under this Section. Sub-section (6) of Section 16-G enjoins upon the Management to report the order of suspension to the Inspector within 7 days from the date of the order of suspension and to disclose in the report all the particulars as prescribed and to enclose therewith all relevant documents, if the suspension order was not passed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, in which case suspension has to be reported to the Inspector within 30 days, which is not the case here. Suspension of any incumbent is a serious onslaught on his service and, therefore, the legislature has enacted sub-section (5) and sub-section (6). Whereas the former states the circumstances in which the suspension may be ordered, the latter regulates the procedure of suspension in order to prevent any misuse of such power on the part of the Management and at the same time to protect the services of incumbents. This is why it is mandatory for the Management to report the suspension order to the Inspector within the prescribed time and send with the report full particulars as prescribed and all the relevant documents; so that the Inspector may make sure that suspension is not ordered on any flimsy and other grounds, except those prescribed under sub-section (5). The Inspector can ascertain all this only when he is supplied all the requisite particulars and the relevant documents. Unless they are laid before him within the prescribed time, he cannot apply his mind and cannot accord approval objectively, as envisaged by subsection (7), which circumscribe operational time limit of the suspension, unless approved by the Inspector within 60 days. Sub-section (7) declares that no order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than 60 days from the date, of such order. From the words "unless approved in writing" the intention of the legislature is clear that if the Inspector wants to accord approval, then that has to be given only in writing and not otherwise and it implies that approval in writing can be accorded only objectively and not whimsically or capriciously by the Inspector. Firstly, the Inspector is required to go into the entire material accompanying the report of the Management, which is enjoined upon by sub-section (6) to send a report disclosing all material particulars and enclosing therewith all relevant documents. It is embedded in the scheme of sub-section (6) that the Inspector should apply his mind fully to the report and all the accompanying material documents. After applying his mind, he may accord approval, but only in writing and in no other manner. Again the legislature wanted to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings should not be prolonged and, therefore,, the Inspector is empowered under sub-section (8) to revoke the suspension in case he is satisfied that the proceedings are delayed for no fault of the incumbents.;