V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) -
(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, which is Committee of Management of an educational institution known as Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College. Sakarpura Khorsena, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the Institution), has challenged the order dated 16-10-1987 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia refusing to accord approval to the resolution of the petitioner Committee of Management suspending respondent no. 2 who is Principal of the Institution. Certain complaints were received by the petitioner Committee of Management against the respondent no. 2. The petitioner Committee of Management, vide its resolution dated 16-8-1987, suspended the respondent no. 2 pending disciplinary enquiry against him. It is asserted in the writ petition that the relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools within time. However, the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord his approval to the. said resolution of the petitioner Committee of Management. Thereafter, the petitioner Committee of Management, vide its resolution dated 27-9-1987, again suspended the respondent no. 2 pending disciplinary enquiry against him. It is alleged in the writ petition that this time, the petitioner Committee of Management sent all the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools within time and complied with the provisions of Regulation 19 framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, but the District Inspector of Schools, by the impugned order, has refused to accord approval to the said resolution of the petitioner Committee of Management suspending the respondent no. 2. It is against this order that the petitioner Committee of Management has come up before this Court. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged and learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this writ petition may be decided on merits at the admission stage, we propose to decide it on merits at the admission stage.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the District Inspector of Schools while according or refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension acts quasi-judicially and, therefore, he must give reasons in his order. His argument is that since the District Inspector of Schools has not given reasons in his order, the said order is illegal and arbitrary. Alternatively it was argued that even if the District Inspector of Schools is held to be acting in administrative capacity, he must give reasons while refusing to accord approval to an order of suspension. LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 2 argued that the District Inspector of Schools while exercising power according or refusing 10 accord approval to an order of suspension does not act quasi-judicially, and, therefore, no reasons are required to be given by him in his order. In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 it was held by the Supreme Court that the dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For deciding whether a power is an administrative power or quasi-judicial power one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised. In view of the dictum of the Supreme Court it is necessary to look into the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder in this regard. Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 16-G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 are quoted below for ready reference :- " (5) No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the Management, unless in the opinion of the Management (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank ; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceeding against him ; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him under investigation, inquiry or trial. (6) Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the Inspector within thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, in case the order of suspension was passed before such commencement, and within seven days from the date of the order of suspension in any other case, and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and be accompanied by all relevant documents. (7) No such order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, or as the case may be from the date of the such order, and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. ";