Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent No. 4 assisted by Sri Pradeep Narain Pandey advocate, and the learned standing counsel for the remaining respondents.
(2.) IT transpires that the Committee of Management appointed respondent No. 4, as an officiating Principal of the institution on 1.7.2006. The Committee of Management resolved to suspend the respondent No. 4 on 23.5.2007 and simultaneously appointed the respondent No. 5, as an officiating Principal. IT transpires that the requisite paper was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for necessary approval or disapproval. The District Inspector of Schools, instead of passing an order under Section 16G (5) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, forwarded the papers to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board U. P. at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Board). The respondent No. 4, being aggrieved by the said direction of the District Inspector of Schools, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50531 of 2007 and the Committee of Management also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53032 of 2007. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 30.11.2007, holding that the District Inspector of Schools had wrongly sent the suspension matter to the Selection Board and, that the District Inspector of Schools alone, was competent to consider the approval or disapproval of the suspension order and, that the District Inspector of Schools was not denuded of his power even after the expiry of 60 days. The Court, consequently directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter. Based on the aforesaid direction, the District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 18.1.2008, approved the suspension order, against which, respondent No. 4 filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12928 of 2008 which was allowed by a judgment dated 7.3.2008, holding that the District Inspector of Schools was required to record its reasons for the approval of the suspension order and, accordingly, the Court remitted the matter again to the District Inspector of Schools, to pass a fresh order, in the light of the observations made therein. Based on the aforesaid direction, the District Inspector of Schools while giving reasons, has now refused to accord approval, by the impugned order. The District Inspector of Schools held that the charge Nos. 2 and 5 were partially proved by the Enquiry Committee and that the remaining charges had not been proved and that the charge so proved, did not amount to any financial irregularity, and that the error, if any, occurred on account of lack of knowledge in the financial matters by the respondent No. 4, and therefore, the District Inspector of Schools held that instead of suspending the respondent No. 4, she should be let off with a warning. The Committee of Management, being aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) WHILE all these proceedings were going on, the Enquiry Committee issued a charge-sheet and the matter was investigated and an opportunity was given to the respondent No. 4 to adduce evidence. It transpires that the Enquiry Committee submitted a report on 22.7.2007 and, based on its recommendation, the Committee of Management, in its resolution dated 30.7.2007, accepted the findings of the Selection Committee and, resolved to continue to keep respondent No. 4 in suspension and recommended the reversion of the respondent No. 4 from the post of officiating Principal to the post of L.T Grade with a rider, that in future, respondent No. 4 would never be given the charge of an officiating Principal. This recommendation of the Committee of Management was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 31.7.2007 for remission to the Selection Board for approval or disapproval as required under Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is alleged that the matter is still pending with the District Inspector of Schools and that he has not forwarded the papers to the Selection Board as yet, and that, in the meantime, the impugned order of disapproval was passed by the District Inspector of Schools.;