PRADEEP KANT, VED PAL, JJ. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed by respondent to the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management and another, challenging the interim order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, by means of which the learned Single Judge observed that it is the Management which has to decide to take work or not to take work from the respondent No. 4 (present appellant), but he is entitled to full pay, for which the petitioner (present respondents No. 1 and 2) has no objection. The order says that the matter be listed for final hearing on 14.10.2008 and till then the petitioners (respondents No. 1 and 2 to the present special appeal) may or may not take work from the respondent No. 4 (appellant) but will pay his salary.
(2.) THE facts, which have given rise to the filing of the writ petition and the present special appeal are that the Committee of Management suspended the appellant vide order dated 14.8.2008. The District Inspector of Schools disapproved the suspension order vide order dated 28.6.2008. The Committee of Management filed a writ petition bearing Number 3828 (SS) of 2008 against the aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the suspension of the appellant. The learned Single Judge (Shri Narayan Shukla, J.), while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 15.7.2003, did not interfere with the order disapproving the suspension of respondent No. 4 but directed for reconsideration of the matter by the District Inspector of Schools as the Committee of Management desired to produce all relevant documents before him and also observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management of the College shall be at liberty to take work of Principal from the teacher, who is eligible in all respect to hold the post of Principal except Sri Raj Narayan Misra and if the proceeding is terminated in favour of the appellant, the respondents shall hand over the charge of Principal to the appellant. The aforesaid order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3828 (SS) of 2008 was served upon the District Inspector of Schools, who on 14.8.2008 passed an order revoking the order of suspension. The District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 14.8.2008 mentioned that power to suspend a teacher under Section-16(G)(5) vests with the Committee of Management, whereas the present suspension order of the appellant has been passed by the Manager on 12.5.2008 and approval to the suspension order has been taken by the Committee of Management on 20.5.2008. According to the District Inspector of Schools, the said proceedings were against specific provision of the Act. He also found that Committee for making enquiry consisted of two Teachers Ramapati Pandey and Sudhakar Tripathi, whereas under the provision of Section 16(G) (3) read with Regulation 35, it is clear that enquiry of a teacher shall be conducted by the Manager or the Principal and such a Committee could be constituted only in case of Principal and, therefore, the Committee so constituted is beyond the scope of the Act and beyond authority. He also observed that the charge sheet is absolutely vague.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Committee of Management is not willing to allow him to work as officiating Principal, therefore, such action has been taken, though the suspension order has not been passed by the competent authority and the District Inspector of Schools rightly revoked the same. His further submission is that once the suspension order has been revoked, the appellant is entitled to officiate as Principal and it is not the sweet will of the Committee of Management to deprive him of his statutory rights.;