- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against impugned order suspend ing the petitioner from the post of Principal of G. R. M. Inter College, Bisalpur, District Pilibhit and the order of respondent No. 1 approving the suspension order.
(2.) I have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 30. 8. 96, Annexure SA-1 to the sup plementary affidavit only mentions that the petitioner's suspension is approved because he is involved in a case under sections 406 and 409, I. P. C. Learned counsel for petitioner sub mitted that the District Inspector of Schools should have considered whether a prima facie case has been made out on merits against the petitioner and he should not have granted approval of the order of the suspension merely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in case under Sections 406 and 409, I. P. C. I am not in agreement in this contention. Section 16-G (5) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 states' no head of institution or teacher shall be suspended by the management unless in the opinion of the management. . . . . . . . (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investiga tion, inquiry or trial. The above provisions make it clear that involvement in a criminal case of moral turpitude is itself a ground for suspension. If the contention of learned counsel for petitioner is accepted it means that the Dis trict Inspector of Schools shall work as a trial court and decide whether the petitioner is guilty of the criminal offence or not. This cannot be done under S. 16-G (7 ). No doubt, if a Head of Institution or teacher is suspended on serious charges without there being any criminal case against him the District Inspector of Schools has to ex amine whether there are in fact any serious charges against the Head of institution or teacher but even there the District Inspec tor of Schools has not to act as a court of appeal and he has only to see whether there are serious charges and there are some materials in support of that charge. As to whether the charges are correct or not will be seen in the enquiry. If the District Inspec tor of Schools finds that there are some serious charges and there is some material in support of the charge the proper course is to direct that the enquiry should be com pleted within a time bound frame e. g. within, say, three months. However if Head of Institution or teacher's involment is in a criminal case of moral turpitude in such a case the District Inspector of Schools has to approve the suspension because the District Inspector of Schools cannot be expected to act as a trial court in a criminal case. All that the D. I. O. S. can see in such a case is whether the person is actually involved in a criminal case of moral turpitude.
(3.) ON the facts of the case I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order but I direct that if the investigation has not as yet bed: completed against the petitioner it must be completed within three months of production of certified copy of order before the police officer concerned and thereafter the trial must be completed within six months thereafter. With these observation the petition is finally disposed of. Order accordingly .;