- (1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this peti tion, the petitioner has challenged the im pugned order dated 23-7-96, Annexure 21 to the writ petition, by which U. P. Secon dary Education Service Commission has approved the termination of services of the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as Counsel for the Com mission and learned standing Counsel and also Sri J. P. Pandey Counsel for the management. The Balrampur Balika Inter Col lege, Gonda is an institution aided and recognised under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The petitioner was initially appointed in the institution and C. T. grade in 1964 and she was promoted to L. T. grade in 1966 and as lecturer in 1969. On 30-6-91 the per manent principal retired and the petitioner being senior most teacher was appointed as ad hoc principal from 1-7-91. It is alleged in para 8 of the petition that certain members of the committee of management were annoyed with the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner and hence they made false complaint against him. On the basis of this complaint an enquiry was constituted but it is alleged in para 10 of the petition that this enquiry committee submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were vague and were not sufficient material. However the said committee recommended that the com mittee of management may hold its own inquiry. In para 11 of the petition it is stated that the committee of management by resolution dated 30-10-92 suspended the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer. This suspension order lapsed after 60 days as it had not been approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools within 60 days. However, the committee of management passed a second suspension order dated 27-12-92 which was disap proved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 18-1-93. Against this order Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1993 was filed by the management. This Court by order dated 16-2-93 permitted the com mittee of management to take or not from the petitioner. The petitioner was to get full salary and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was to pass a speaking order, consequently the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by order 30-3-93 disap proved the suspension of the petitioner. This order was placed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1993 and the Court by order dated 15-5-93 directed that the petitioner could continue to function to work as principal. However, the com mittee of management again suspended the petitioner on 30-8-93 but this order was not approved by the Regional In spectress of Girls Schools within 60 days and hence another order dated 30-3-93 was passed reverting the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. It is alleged that this order was passed without giving oppor tunity of hearing to the petitioner. From 1-11-93 to June 1994 the petitioner was not paid salary as principal or Lecturer but from July 1994 she was paid salary of lec turer. The petitioner being aggrieved filed writ petition No. 4644 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and this Court by order dated 4-10-94 held that the suspension order shall stand revoked be cause the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools had not granted approval within 60 days vide Annexure 2 to the petition. It is alleged in para 21 of the peti tion that there are two sets of rival management committees and hence the matter was referred under Section 16-A (7) to the Deputy Director of Education vide Annexure 3 to the petition but the Deputy Director of Education has not yet decided the dispute. Hence by order dated 3-8-93 an authorised controller was appointed pending decision by the Deputy Director of Education. The committee of manage ment headed by Vinay Pal Singh filed Writ Petition No. 1926 of 1993 in the Lucknow Bench in which a time bound interim order was granted in favour of the commit tee of management but that order has ex pired. True copy of the interim order is Annexure 4 to the petition. Hence an authorised controller was again appointed on 9-4-96. This appointment was chal lenged in Writ Petition No. 923 of 1996 in which a limited stay order was granted which has expired. It is alleged in para 31 of the petition that after expiry of the term of the earlier committee of management in 1993 no committee of management has been recognised by the education authorities as the valid committee of management and the controversy regard ing the rival committees has been pending before Deputy Director of Education. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 had no authority to conduct any proceeding against a teacher or principal. However, it is alleged that the committee of manage ment headed by K. K. Pandey at the relevant time with mala fide intention in itiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by K. N. Tripathi and Yogendra Singh by resolution dated 2-6-92. The alleged com mittee is alleged to have passed a resolu tion for constitution of an enquiry com mittee of five members including K. K. Pandey and Syed Ali Mehdi as Convenors. It is alleged in para 36 of the petition that the said enquiry committee submitted a report that the charges against petitioner were not specific and the same may be inquired into by the management itself. A true copy of resolution of the committee of management dated 2-6-92 and the report of the enquiry committee dated 28-6-92 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Acting on the said report, the manage ment passed a fresh resolution dated 30-10-92, Annexure 8 to the petition by which it was resolved that the enquiry be con ducted against the petitioner by Syed Ali Mehdi alone. It is alleged in para 39 of the petition that appointment of a member enquiry committee against the petitioner was illegal as the petitioner was holding the post of principal and hence a sub-com mittee should have been constituted. It is alleged in para 41 of the petition that the alleged committee of management served upon petitioner show cause notices dated 7-12-92, 23-4-93 and 14-7-93 and 1-9-93, Annexures 9 to 12 to the writ petition. It is alleged in para 42 of the petition that the aforesaid show cause notices were said to be the charge-sheet. However, none of the documents of evidence proposed to be relied upon was appended to the notices. It is stated in para 43 of the petition that by means of letter dated 24-3-93, the petitioner requested that the documen tary evidence be made available to him. It is alleged in para 44 that although by letter dated 27-4-93, the enquiry committee as sured the petitioner that documents would be made available to her but these documents were neither made available nor were shown to her. Copy of the letter dated 27-4-1993 is Annexure 3 to the peti tion. In para 46 of the petition it is alleged that at no point of time any oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the alleged enquiry committee nor was the petitioner given opportunity of hearing or opportunity to cross-examina tion the witnesses against her. In para 47 it is alleged that the enquiry committee fol lowed a very peculiar procedure for the purposes of recording of evidence namely questionnaire was prepared by the Manager of the Institution which was cir culated amongst the teachers and staff of the institution and they were required to submit a reply to the said questionnaire. In para 48 it is alleged that the ques tionnaire was not made available to the petitioner, nor was she afforded any op portunity to cross-examine the teachers and staff who have submitted the said questionnaire by the Inquiry Committee. In para 49 it is alleged that except for the dates 23-3-1993,27- 4-1993 and 17 -7-1993 no other date was communicated to the petitioner by t he enquiry committee about the conduct of the inquiry proceeding. The said inquiry committee is said to have completed its inquiry in its meeting dated 24-11-1993 in respect whereof a notice was ever served upon the petitioner. In para 50 it is alleged that as a matter of fact, the entire enquiry proceedings have been manufactured by the respondents by an tedating the records and are an outcome of clear mala fide attitude of the committee of management. In para 51 of the petition it is alleged that the very constitution of the inquiry committee was vitiated and contrary to Regulation 35 and the proce dure followed by the alleged inquiry com mittee was hit by Regulation 36 and was in violation of the principles of natural jus tice. In para 52 of the petition the petitioner has quoted the counter-af fidavit filed by the by. Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1993. In para 53 of the petition reference has been made to the report of the inquiry commit tee which was forwarded by the alleged committee of management to the petitioner vide letter dated 27-10-1994, copy of which letter is Annexure 15 to the petition. In para 56 of the petition it is stated that the committee of management passed a resolution dated 20-3-95 propos ing dismissal of the petitioner's services vide Annexure 17. In para 57 it is alleged that this resolution in was required to be forwarded by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. However, the District In spector of Schools at the relevant time Sarva Jeet Singh Bora who was said to have been won over by the alleged com mittee of management because of corrupt practices, assumed powers of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and for warded the resolution of the committee of management with his own recommenda tions, which was wholly uncalled for and without authority of law in view of Regula tion 2-C read with Regulation 6 of the U. R Secondary Education Service Commis sion (Procedure for Approval of Punish ment) Regulations, 1985. Under Regula tion 6 of the punishment Regulations, 1985 the Inspector (in the instant case the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools) is required to submit his report pointing out the defects if any, in the proceedings of the management. It is alleged in para 58 of the petition that the alleged committee of manage ment with mala fide intention in order to avoid the said report of the Regional In spectress of Girls Schools, has deliberately routed papers through the office of the District Inspector of Schools who was hos tile the petitioner and had been won over by the management as established by the counter-affidavit of the Deputy Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 4644 of 1993. In para 59 of the petition it is alleged that the Commission vide letter dated 14-9-1995, had issued notice to the petitioner, Annexure 19 to the petition. The letter of Manager of the Institution was also sent along with this letter. The petitioner sent her reply dated 8- 12-95 vide Annexure 20 to the petition. It is alleged in para 63 of the petition that the commission by means of order dated 23-7-1996, has approved the punishment proposed by the alleged committee of management vide resolution dated 20-3-1995. In para 65 it is alleged that the Commission in the impugned order has not cared to look into the ex planation furnished by the petitioner in respect of specific charges and has only referred to the allegations made against the petitioner without application of mind. In para 72 of the petition it is alleged that the entire disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were manifestly il legal and have been held in manifest viola tion of the principles of natural justice. In para 73 it is alleged that the petitioner had objected to the induction of Syed Ali Mehdi Rizvi as the nominee to the enquiry committee. It is further alleged that the daughter of the Chairman of the Commis sion was engaged to the son of Rizvi. In para 76 it is alleged that the District In spector of Schools vide letter dated 29-6-1995, while forwarding the relevant docu ments pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner had mentioned that the total number of papers were 1 to 129 but it was surprising that the Commission, while forwarding the letter dated 14-9-1995 calling for an explanation from the petitioner, had increased the number of papers in the inquiry proceed ings from pages 1 to 265. It is thus, ap parent that pages 130 to 265 have been inducted into the records of the Commis sion by the alleged committee of manage ment without the same having been routed through the inspector.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the authorised controller. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that there was a dispute between rival committees of management and hence the authorised controller was appointed. This appoint ment was challenged by Vinay Pal Singh Tomar by means of Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1996 but the said writ petition was dis missed on 2-9-96. The special appeal against that order was decided on 20-9-96 vide Annexure CA-2 to the counter-af fidavit. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the resolution and the inquiry report would have been forwarded through the office of Regional Inspector of Girls Schools only in order to enable the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools to point out the defects in the inquiry report. The District Inspector of Schools could not have forwarded the resolution and in quiry report nor was he competent to make recommendation in that regard in asmuch as the institution is a Girls Institu tion. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.;