- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. The decision dated 10-4-1991 of Single Member Sub-Committee of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission constituted under regulation 5 (2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1983 (in short 'procedure and Conduct of Business Regulation, 1983' as also the decision taken "by the Secondary Education Service Commission in its meeting held on 12-4-1991 as communicated by its Deputy Secretary vide Order, dated 18-4-1991 and the Secretary by letter dated 23-4-1991 are sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed Lecturer in Physics in J. B. Inter College, Alinagar Kenjara, district Agra now in the district of Firozabad on 8-7-1969 and confirmed in that capacity on 24-5-1970. Shorn of unnecessary details it may be stated that the committee of management of the College initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and concluded the same ex pane according to the allegations made in the Writ Petition, and proposed major penalty of dismissal from service to the Secondary Education Service Commission for approval under Section 21 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. THE petitioner, it is alleged, came to know of the proceeding only on receipt of notice dated 18-9-1986 from the Secretary, Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad. By means of the said notice the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation before the Commission by 18-10-1986 and to appear before the Sub-Committee on the said date. It is not disputed that single member sub-committee of Sri Prahlad Narain found that the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated for the reasons set out in the order dated 19-10-1988 of the single member sub committee appointed by the Commission. THE decision taken by the sub committee was approved by the Commission and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in regard to the charges No. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 only in the light of the decision taken by the Commission, THE committee of manage ment again proposed dismissal of the petitioner from service which proposal was examined by the sub-committee of Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak who came to the following conclusion vide his order dated 15-5-1990 : It appears that the said decision "could not be placed before the Commission for its decision for want of quorum" and 'before the quorum of the Commission could be complete, Sri Pathak had tendered his resignation on 31-7-1990 and left the Commission. " Since Sri Pathak had resigned he could not participate in the meeting of the Commission, and therefore, as alleged in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it was decided by the Commission in its meeting held on 4-1- 1991 to entrust the task of preliminary review of the matter to the one man Sub-Committee of its member Sri D. P. Misra. The said sub-committee by its decision dated 10-4-1991 recommended for approval of the proposed punish ment of dismissal from service. The decision taken by the said sub- committee was approved by the Secondary Education Service Commission in their meeting held on 12- 4-1991 which was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 23-4-1991 with a copy endorsed to the petitioner. It is this decision which is sought to be quashed by means of this petition. Having heard Sri R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Bhushan for the Committee of Management and Sri A. K. Singh for the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (in short 'the Commis sion' ). I am of the view that the decision taken by the Commission is not sustainable in law. I find substance in the submission made by Sri R. S. Misra that the decision taken by Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak, single member sub committee was not liable to be ignored by the Commission merely because Sri Pathak had resigned from the membership of the Commission and was no longer available on the date the matter could be taken up by the Commission. The submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the decision taken by Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak was in fact a report and not a decision and that the Commission was not bound to consider it since Sri Pathak could not be available i'or deliberation, cannot be countenanced in view of the language employed in Regulation 5 of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 1983 which is quoted below : "5. Procedure (General ).- (I) For convenient transaction of its business the allocation of work among members (including Chairman) shall, from time to time be made by the Commission. In urgent cases Chairman may allot any work to any Member and place before the next meeting. (2) For convenient and expeditious transaction of its business the Commission may constitute a committee or committees from amongst its member or authorise any member for performance of any specified work or transaction of any specified business. (3) The allocation made under the above clauses may be amended altered or modified as and when deemed necessary. (4) The senior-most Member shall be Convenor of the Committee. (5) Decisions of the Committee shall, except in matters in respect of which the Commission has otherwise directed, be subject to appro val of the Commission. (6) Member of the Committee may seek the opinion of any other member or members on any issue under consideration of the Commission and may send the file/papers to all or any of the Members for the purpose. " The task of preliminary review of the matter assigned by the Commission to one of its members under Regulation 5 is really the task of the Commission to be performed through the member entrusted with the role of preliminary review of the matter with the rider that the decision taken by the member shall be "subject to approval of the Commission. " The decision arrived at by a member-committee of the Commission under Regulation 5 must have its logical end in being approved or dis-approved by the Commission notwith standing the fact that the member concerned could not be available for deliberations at the meeting of the Commission either due to cessation of membership by reason of resignation or death, or due to any other reason whatsoever.
(3.) REGULATION 5 (5) in no uncertain terms has used the words 'decisions of the committee' and therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decision of single member sub-committee was not a decision but merely a report, cannot be accepted. Further expression, "decisions of the committee shall. . . . . . . . . . be subject to approval of the Commission" makes it abundantly clear that the decision of the committee cannot be just ignored without considering the question of its being approved by the Commission, REGULATION 8 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) REGULATIONs, 1985 reliance on which was placed by Sri Ashok Bhushan, does not in any manner support his contention that the decision of the single member sub- committee under REGULATION 5 of the Conduct of Business REGULATIONs, i 983 is merely a report and not a decision of any moment in the event of member constituting the said committee ceasing to be member before it is considered by the Commission. True, power of imposition of proper punishment is within the realm of the Committee of Management but since no punishment of dismissal or removal from service of a teacher falling within the purview of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 can be inflicted by the management except with the prior approval of the Commission, it becomes the duty of the Commission to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record with a view to determining whether or not the Committee of Management has acted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and awarded punishment commensurate with the charges found proved. In fact Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is designed to control the arbitrary exercise of power of punishment vested in the management of the institution. The Com mission has, therefore to address itself to all the aspects of the matter includ ing quantum of punishment which may be appropriate and commensurate to be charges of misconduct found proved in a given case before according approval to the proposed punishment. The decision taken by Pathak Com-mitee, in my opinion, constituted a valid and relevant material on the question of quantum and nature of punishment. The decision of Pathak Committee was no doubt not binding as it was subject to approval of the Commission," but the Commission having failed to address itself to the said decision, its ultimate decision impugned in this writ petition stands vitiated inasmuch as non- consideration of the decision arrived at by single member sub-committee of Shri Bhairo Dutt Pathak vitiates the decision-making process itself. It was no doubt open to the Commission to reject the said decision and appoint another committee for preliminary review of the matter, but the Commission could not have ignored the decision dated 15-5-1992 of Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak without due consideration thereof and without giving reasons for deferring with the said decision. The Commission in my opinion must give reasons in writing for deferring with the decision of a sub-committee under Regulation 5 of the Conduct of Business Regulations to ward off any attack of arbitrariness. A decision arrived at by a single member sub-committee constituted under Regulation 5 of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 1983 cannot be just ignored merely because the member is not available at the time the matter is taken for consideration by the Commission. In fact the validity of the very appointment of another sub-committee without rejecting, for recorded reasons, the decision already taken by Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak, is doubtful, but since the subsequently appointed single member sub-committee too has given its decision, it would be just and proper to remit the matter back to the Commis sion for re- consideration of the entire matter afresh with liberty to accept and approve any of the two decisions one rendered by Sri Bhairo Dutt Pathak and the other by Sri D. P. Misra but for reasons to be recorded in writing.;