M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in writ petition - No. 13019 of 1992 challenge the order dated 17 -2 -1992 passed by the respondent No. 1 as also the subsequent orders dated 4 -4 -1992, 2 -4 -1992, and 9 -3 -1992 which are consequential in nature. It will be useful to give a brief resume of facts to understand the controversy raised in this writ petition. The institution in question is a Junior High School imparting education up to Class VIII of which the petitioner No. 1 claims to be the committee of management and the petitioner No. 2 claims to be officiating Head Mistress. The respondent No. 3 Smt. Krishna Misra is said to have been appointed on probation as Plead Mistress on 15 -9 -199l for the said institution. Her period of probation was extended vide resolution No. 3 dated 7 -9 -1991. She was informed of this resolution by the Manager of the institution by means of a letter dated 10 -9 -1991. There were some allegations against the respondent No. 3, which are said to have affected the reputation of the institution. The respondent No. 3 is said to have been placed under suspension on 9 -2 -1992 by the committee of management and an enquiry is said to have been ordered against her conduct. In the absence of the respondent No. 3 the committee of management appointed petitioner No. 2 as officiating Head Mistress of the institution. The committee of management decided that the respondent No. 3 shall remain under suspension during the period of enquiry with full pay without any deduction and diminution in her emoluments. This was done by means of the resolution dated 17 -2 -1992. The communication dated 17 -2 -1992 was sent to the respondent No. 1 also. The said respondent on 17 -2 -1992 i. e. on the date be received the communication, is said to have passed the impugned order on some representation made by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 1 has by the impugned order revoked the suspension order dated 9 -2 -1992 in respect of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioners submit that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction as under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act and 1978 Service Rules framed thereunder the respondent No. 1 has no authority to interfere or pass any order in the matter of suspension of an employee of the institution. The impugned order is said to have been passed in derogation of law and in violation of principles of natural justice. No pecuniary loss of diminution in the emoluments of the respondent No. 3 was affected by the impugned order. The respondent No. 1 is said to have relied on some authority, Subhash Chandra Pandey v. The District Basic Education Officer and others ( : 1990 (16) ALR 898). The petitioners have leveled some allegations against the respondent No. 3, which according to them are reduced to the form of charge sheet served on the respondent No. 3. On the basis of the impugned order the respondent No. 2 is said to have passed an order on 2 -4 -l992 that the salary bills of the school should be countersigned by the respondent No. 3 and not by the petitioner No. 2. One Lakshmi Narain Pandey is said to have been appointed for conducting enquiry against the respondent No. 3. The issuance of the impugned order is said, to have affected the right of the petitioner to operate the Bank account of the institution. The concerned Bank has informed the petitioners by their letter dated 9 -3 -1992 that they cannot operate the Bank account in view of the impugned order and because of some other reasons given in para 21 of the writ petition. The respondent No. 1 is said to be pressurising the committee of management to permit the respondent No. 3 to function as Headmistress of the institution in question. The order dated 4 -4 -1992 in this regard is reported to have been made by the respondent No. l. The Committee of management feels that any order with regard to the assignment of work of Head Mistress to the respondent No. 3 will be unjustified and illegal in view of the serious charges, which are being probed against her. It is stated that it will be impossible to conduct enquiry against the respondent No. 3 when she functions as Head Mistress. The responded No. 3 has filed counter affidavit. She has denied the allegations leveled against her and has claimed that she was functioning with utmost efficiency and was given excellent entries every year. The respondent No. 3 submits that it was not necessary to put her on probation because she has been put on probation when she was appointed as Assistant Teacher of the institution. She also raised objection to the letter dated 10 -9 -1990 by which her period of probation was extended for another one year. In respect of her suspension she submits that there was no ground whatsoever to suspend her and the order was mala fide and issued for extraneous reasons. The respondent No. 3 is said to have informed the committee of management that her suspension was illegal. This assertion of the respondent No 3 seems to have been based on the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court reported in, 1991 UPLBEC 226 (Supra). By giving full salary to the petitioner during the period of suspension, the suspension order of the petitioner has become non -est and redundant. On 21 -2 -1992 the respondent No. 1 is said to have directed the petitioner No. 1 to permit the contesting respondent No. 3 to discharge her duties as Head Mistress of the institution. The petitioner No. 1 has by their letter dated 25 -2 -1992 informed the respondent No. 1 that it was not possible for them to allow the respondent No 3 to discharge her duties. The respondent No. 1 bas not accepted the review petition against the order dated 17 -8 -1992 filed by the petitioner No. 1. The second review petition also has met the same fate and the order dated 4 -4 -1992 was issued by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 bas refuted the impugned order and denied the factual allegations leveled by the petitioners against her.
(3.) ANOTHER petitioner, which is Smt. Krishan Misra v. The District' Basic Education Officer (14918 of 1992) was filed by the respondent No. 3 for grant of a writ of mandamus against the committee of management, which is the petitioner No. 1 in this writ petition to the effect that her functioning as Head Mistress of the institution in question shall not be interfered with. The writ petition is based on the order dated 17 -2 -1992 issued by the respondent No. 1 revoking the suspension' order of the Head Mistress Smt. Krishna Misra. which is impugned in writ petition No. 14918 of 1992. The Committee of management has filed counter affidavit to this writ petition and they have reiterated all the assertions which are made by them in writ petition No. 13019 of 1992. It is contended that the approval of the respondent No. 1 in the matter of suspension of the Head Mistress and Assistant Teacher is not required and the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to revoke the suspension order issued by the committee of management, which has authority to issue the same.;