- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. In Azamgarh there is an institution S. B. Inter College, Lahua Kalan which is a recognised institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The regular Principal of the College R. N. Singh was placed under suspension in the year 1985 and in his place Sri Om Prakash Singh re spondent No. 3 being senior most lecturer working at the institution was allowed to officiate. He continued to work as such till July 1993. It is said that during this period of officiating Principal he committed financial and administrative irregulari ties, on account of which the Committee of Management of the institution (hereinafter Committee of Management) decided to hold a disciplinary inquiry against him. A three member inquiry committee was appointed. The respondent No. 3 did not appear before the inquiry committee and an inquiry report dated 30. 9. 1996 was submitted. The Committee of Management on its basis resolved to dismiss the respondent No. 3 from service vide resolution passed in its meeting held on 20. 10. 1996. The resolution of the Committee of Management along with other necessary documents were submitted to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter for short 'board') for approval. Pending the aforesaid approval, under pressure of the DIOS the respondent No. 3 was allowed to re sume duties and it was said that he again committed irregularities and as such was subjected to another disciplinary proceeding. This time also a three member inquiry committee was appointed to look into the irregularities committed by him. An inquiry report was submitted on 22. 2. 2002 and on the basis of the said inquiry report the Committee of Management passed resolution on 23. 3. 2002 resolving to dismiss the respondent No. 3 from service. This second resolution for dismiss ing the respondent No. 3 from service along with other papers relating to the inquiry were again submitted before the Board for approval.
(2.) THE Board considered both the resolutions of the Committee of Management for dismissing the respondent No. 3 from service and finally passed a com mon order dated 18. 12. 2003 disapproving both the resolutions. It is against the aforesaid order of the Board dated 18. 12. 2003, that the Committee of Management of the institution has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 it has been provided by Section 16-G that every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee. Section 16-G (3) (a) further provide that no teacher be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments except with prior approval in writing by the inspector and the inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhances the punishment. However, with the enforce ment of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 the power conferred upon the inspector for approval or disapproval of the action of punish ment proposed to be taken by the management has been taken away and has v been vested upon the Board.
(3.) SECTION 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 provides that the management of an institution is not competent to dismiss or remove any teacher from service or to reduce his rank or emoluments without prior approval of the Board. SECTION 21 of the Act is reproduced below: "21. Restriction on dismissal etc, of teachers.-The Management shall not, except with the prior approval of the [board], dismiss any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period (whether temporarily or permanently) and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be void. " The procedure for holding an inquiry and imposing punishment upon a teacher of an intermediate college is provided under Chapter III of the Regulations under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The said Regulations under Regulation 35 provides that the Committee of Management on receiving com plaint about any irregularities committed by a teaching or non-teaching staff shall appoint an inquiry officer/committee. Regulation 36 provides that the grounds on which the action is proposed to be taken shall be reduced in the form of a charge-sheet and shall be communicated to the delinquent employee to enable him to reply the same within three weeks. The inquiry officer or the committee as the case may be after completion of the inquiry shall submit a report with recommen dations regarding punishment to be imposed on the employee. Regulation 37 provides that the Committee of Management on receiving the report of inquiry with recommendations shall immediately give notice to the delinquent employee and place the same for consideration before the Committee of Management for final decision enabling the delinquent employee an opportunity to be personally present and to submit his defence and explanation before it. Regulation 37 is material and relevant and as such is reproduced herein below: @ HINDi;