S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 29.10.2002 and the order dated 31.10.2001 (Annexures-9 and 11 to the writ petition). By the order dated 31.10.2001, the District Inspector of Schools has approved the resolution and the suspension of the petitioner who has been working as officiating Principal.
(2.) The petitioner happens to be the senior most Lecturer in the college known as S. B. Inter College, Lahua Kalan, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the College). By the order of respondent No. 1. seniority dispute was decided and the Committee of Management was directed to give charge of ad hoc Principal to the petitioner, upon which the petitioner was appointed as such. It has been stated that the committee being prejudiced by the decision of respondent No. 1 started harassing the petitioner in various manner. The respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the petitioner directing him to entrust all the financial liability to Pramod Kumar Singh, and Assistant Clerk Kanchit Singh. It is stated that in pursuance of the direction of the Committee of Management, the petitioner after collecting amount of fee, etc., handed over the same to Pramod Kumar Singh, but it appears that the said Pramod Kumar Singh did not deposit the same in the concerned account, in respect to which the petitioner gave information to respondent No. 2 by various letters. It has been stated that on frivolous charges, the respondent No. 2 resolved for petitioner's suspension, which has now been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, by the order impugned in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of respondent No. 1 is clearly arbitrary and is also in violation of principle of natural justice. It has been pointed out that the order does not indicate that the respondent No. 1 has applied his mind to the charges in the light of the petitioner's reply. No finding has been recorded dealing with the charges and as the order is non-speaking one, it is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It has been further submitted that the order has been passed on account of Interference by the Joint Director of Education which is clear from the impugned order itself and further that on 29.10.2001. the petitioner was given notice to give reply in respect to the audit report to which the petitioner has submitted reply on 30.10.2001 and on very next day, i.e., 31.10.2001, the impugned order has been passed. The order does not state that why the petitioner's reply has not been found to be satisfactory and, therefore, on account of non-application of mind, without giving any reason for discarding petitioners explanation and their being interference by the Joint Director of Education, the order is bad in law. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision given in the case of Committed of Management v. D.I.O.S., Ballia and Ors., 1998 UPLBEC 226 and Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. and Ors., 1999 (3) ESC 1811. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, it has been submitted that the District Inspector of Schools was required to record brief reasons for according/refusing while giving approval, although a detail judgment was not required.
(3.) In response to the aforesaid submissions as has been made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents, submits that there has been serious charges of financial irregularities on the part of the petitioner which was duly corroborated by the audit report also and therefore, on the facts of the present case, the District Inspector of Schools has taken a correct decision in the matter. It has been further argued that in the event, the petitioner's contention is accepted and detail finding comes in the order of the District Inspector of Schools, that has to prejudice the petitioner's case itself in the enquiry proceedings. It has been pointed out that the District Inspector of Schools has referred to various charges against the petitioner, the audit report and also the reply as has been submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, he was fully conscious with all the facts and situation and it is then, order of approval to the suspension of the petitioner has been passed.;