- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Petitioner Awadh Narain Tripathi was appointed as permanent lecturer in Sri Nehru Inter College, Othersiya, Etawah on 30-8-1974. In a mishap in the year 1985, Sri Ram Autar Tripathi, the confirmed Principal of the College sustained acid burns allegedly impairing his vision. White he was undergoing treatment, the petitioner supplanted him as officiat ing Principal and his signatures as such are said to have been attested too by the District Inspector of Schools on 19-9-1985.
(2.) AS alleged in the petition, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 15-3-1989, as officiating Principal of the College and served with a charge sheet on 17-4-1989. From a perusal of the record, it would transpire that the petitioner was taxed with the charges of: (1) unauthorised absence from duty from 26-12-1988 to 17-3-1989; (ii) Removal of certain records from the College ; (iii) Avoidance to receive postal communications/ letters from the Manager and thereby causing obstructions in the administra tion of the affairs of the institution ; (iv) attempt to take charge as officiating principal by falsifying documents exhibiting disability on the part of the permanent principal; and (v) Unauthorised operation of development funds account of the College and non-submission of statement of account thereof. It transpires from a perusal of the period of the record that the disciplinary proceedings proceeded ex parte and climaxed with the guilt brought home to the petitioner as per inquiry report dated 6-10-1989. The Enquiry Sub-Committee climaxed its report dated 6-10-1989 with the findings that the petitioner was guilty of aforestated charges. The sub-committee, however, oscillated to indict the petitioner on the count of misappropriation of Rs. 4,000 out of the development funds in the absence of any evidence. By means of resolution dated 27-10-1989, the Committee of Manage ment headed by Sri R. K. Chaturvedi resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner, Papers were transmitted to the Secondary Education Services Commission in short the Commission) for approval under Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 which stimulated the Commission to issue a show cause notice served on the petitioner on 10-2-1991. The petitioner submitted his written reply dated 11-3-1991. A single member sub-committee of the Commission heard separately the repre sentative of the Management on 5-6-1991 and the petitioner on 6-6-1991. The single member sub-committee of the Commission concurred with the report submitted by the Enquiry sub-committee and the Commission in its meeting dated 5-7-1991 approved the management's proposal to terminate the petitioner's services.
(3.) THE Commission in its meeting held on 3-7-1991 gave imprimatur to the resolution of the committee of management for termination of peti tioner's services and the decision so taken was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25-7-1991, which has been impugned in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the charges against the petitioner were non existent and that entire enquiry proceeding was violative of regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter HI of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and natural justice and that the committee of management which passed the resolution for terminating the petitioner's cervices lacked in validity and the dispute in respect thereof having been referred by the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section J 6-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the latter had vide letter dated 16-1-1989 clearly directed that no faction should be recognised during the pendency of the dispute and therefore, proceeded the submission of the learned counsel, the enquiry as well as decision taken by the committee were liable to be discount ed. Indubitably the dispute as to validity of the committee of management constituted in December, 1988 was pending adjudication before the Regional Deputy Director of Education who had vide letter dated 16-1-1989 directed that no faction should be recognised during the pendency of the dispute pursuant to which the District Inspector of Schools, vide communication letter dated 25-1-1989, had informed Sri R. K. Chaturvedi that it was not possible to recognise any of the rival committees of management not even the old one. But the operation of the orders contained in letter dated 16-1-1989 and 25-1-1989 was stayed by the High Court vide interim order dated 13-2-1989 passed in writ petition No. 1946 of 1989 and it is admitted to the petitioner that Sri Radba Krishna Chaturvedi started functioning on the basis of the said interim order dated 13-2-1989 passed in writ petition No. 1946 of 1989 as per paragraph 11 of the writ petition and further that in compliance with the interim order dated 13-2-1989 the District Inspector of Schools accepted Sri Radha Krishna Chaturvedi as Manager of the institution vide letter dated 16-2-1989, as would be evident from the reply to the show cause notice sub mitted by the petitioner. That being the position, the committee of manage ment headed by Sri Chaturuedi would have to be taken as defacto committee of management entitled to perform duties of the committee of management under colour of title and such performance of duties would be saved by the defacto doctrine in that the committee of management headed by Sri Radha Krishna Chaturvedi was acting under a colour of title on account of the order of the District Inspector of Schools contained in the letter dated 16-2. 1989 and not as a rank trespasser. This doctrine is founded on the sound principle of public policy and justice. See State of U. P. v. Rafiquddin, AIR 1988 SC 162, (para 20) at p. 179-80. Disciplinary actions taken by the Committee of Management recognised by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 16-2-1989 cannot, therefore, be invalidated merely because the dispute regarding validity of committee of management of the College was pending adjudica tion before the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.;