RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) THE Committee of Management of Tarai Shri Sanatan Dharma Uchchatar Prathamik Kanya Vidyalaya, Zafarpur, district Nainital, has filed the present writ petition, against an order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, dated 27/29 March, 1993 (Annexure-19 to the Writ Petition). By this order, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has declined to grant approval on the action of the management to terminate the services of the Head Mistress, Smt. Sudha Arora.
(2.) APPARENTLY, the management suspended the Head Mistress, put her under charges, made an enquiry and passed an order suspending her services, as, according to the management, the charges against her stood proved. Some of the charges related to financial irregularities, on which an allegation has been made against the Head Mistress, Smt. Sudha Arora, The Basic Shiksha Adhakari examined the record and declined approval to terminate the services of Smt. Sudha Arora, the Head Mistress. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari was of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case before him, far from the Head Mistress being held responsible individually, the possibility could not be ruled out that the management was also responsible, jointly. Thus, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was of the view that it was not appropriate that the Head Mistress should have been suspended or that she should be dismissed. He did not find the enquiry conducted, conforming to the rule of natural justice and was of the view that it has proceeded on the basis of self-made procedures and, in reference to the allegations, made against the Head Mistress, the management never complained, on record, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, so that he could make an enquiry into the matter by an inspection.
(3.) THE Basic Shiksha Adhikari, further, was of the view that the question was not of the withdrawal of Rs. 11,968.00 by the Head Mistress, because if that was, the management has to explain how this money came in the account of the School. Nothing Was available on record on the source from which the money was credited to the account of the School. In reference to Glass IX and X being run by the Head Mistress, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was of the view that no report had been sent by the management of this irregularity and it would not be appropriate Co hold the Head Mistress responsible for running these classes, implying thereby that both the management and the Head Mistress could be at fault. The contention of the petitioner (Committee of Management) is that the only matter which the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had to examine was whether the charges against the Head Mistress has been proved or not, and beyond granting the approval being sought, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, could not go into other matters. The Court is not impressed with these submissions.;