- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari has been prayed for to quash an orde- dated 22-2-97 as per Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon respondent No. 1 to proceed with case against the petitioner in accordance with law.
(2.) THE petitioner Dr. Tulai Singh Gangwar has been a Principal in S. R. M. Inter College, Bislapur, Pihbhit, (in short the College) as per a letter of appointment dated 26-6-89. THE College was run by the Nagar Palika and the Chairman of the Nagar Palika was ex officio the Chairman of the Managing Committee. THEre had been some conflict between the Principal and the elected Chairman and there had been cases ana counter cases at the instance of each against the other. On an F. I. R. lodged against the Principal at the instance of the Chairman, the Management Committee recorded a suspension order against the Principal. This suspension order was not approved by the D. I. O. S. Subsequently, another F. I. R. was lodged against the Prin cipal and he was again put under suspen sion. When the matter went to the D. I. O. S. , he had recorded a detailed order making a reference to the earlier criminal case, the earlier suspension and the earlier order of non-approval of the suspension. For the present order of suspension, the D. I. O. S. was of the view that it was not proper to base a suspension on the basis of the first infor mation report alone. He recorded an opinion "aatah Shri Gangwar ke Virudh dosh siddh hone ki stithi me hiunke virudh niyamanusar dandatmak karyavahi kiya jana uchit he ga. " He disapproved the proposal of suspension dated 6-1-97 by his Older dated 4-2-97. THE D. I. O. S. further directed that the Managing Committee shall not interfere in the work of the petitioner as Principal of the College. Subsequently, by an order dated 22-2-97 the same D. I. O. S. informed the Manager of the School as charge-sheet was submitted in the case as informed by the Management by its letter dated 11- 2-97 and as the Chief Judicial Magistrate had acted upon it and had issued non-bailable warrant against the Principal, hence the proposal for suspension dated 6-1-97 was accepted and approved. The Principal Dr. Tulsi Singh Gangwar is the petitioner in this case and he has arrayed as respondents the D. I. O. S. Pilibhit, the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College as well as one Rama Kant Bajpai, a lecturer in the College as respondents. The relie, have been prayed for against respondent No. 1, the D. I. O. S. , alone with a prayer for quashing his order dated 22-2-97 and for a direction to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
(3.) THE relevant law is contained in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16-G deals with conditions of ser vice of head of institution teachers and other employees. THE head of the Institu tion is not to be suspended by the Manage ment unless in the opinion of the Manage ment the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or his continuance in of fice is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings against him or any criminal case for an of fence including moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Such an order of suspension is to be reported to the D. I. O. S. with in seven days from the date of the order of the suspension and such order of suspension shall not remain en force for more than 60 days from the date of such order and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. THE proposal in question was dated 6-1-97 and it was communicated to the D. I. O. S. on 8-1-97 and the D. I. O. S. recorded his first order on 4-2-97 and the second order on 22-2-97. The petitioner challenged the im pugned order dated 22-2-97 on the ground that he was not heard in the matter at all. It was contended that when the order was final in terms of Section 16- G (7) of the Act, the D. I. O. S. had no authority to review the same and to replace it by another order. Shri R. K. Jain also contended that the D. I. O. S. had already indicated that a proceeding could have been insisted only after "dosh siddh" i. e. conviction and as such mere sub mission of the charge-sheet could not be a ground for reopening the matter.;