AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Principal of a Girls Institution who has alleged malafides against the Commissioner of the Division, District Magistrate, the District Inspector of Schools, the Assistant District Inspector of Schools, the Accounts Officer and one of the Peons of the institution.
(2.) THE writ petition is primarily filed against the orders dated 14.9.2009, 29.10.2009 and 12.11.2009 passed by the respondents, on the ground, that the District Inspector of Schools has been severely influenced by the directions issued by the Commissioner and the District Magistrate whereupon he has proceeded to compel the Committee of Management to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. The dispute appears to have arisen on account of a letter written by the Commissioner of the Meerut Division dated 6th August, 2009 followed by the letter of District Magistrate dated 12th August, 2009 whereupon the District Inspector of Schools called upon the Manager of the Institution to take action forthwith after holding the petitioner directly guilty of the allegations contained in the said letter. A copy of the said letter dated 8th September, 2009 is annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same indicates that some report had been submitted by one Sardar Singh an Assistant District Inspector of Schools on 2.8.2009, but not being satisfied with the same, the District Inspector of Schools called upon the Accounts Officer Mr. Radhey Ram, respondent no.7 to submit a report which was done on 7th September, 2009 whereafter the District Inspector of Schools issued the directions on 8th September, 2009. The said direction of the District Inspector of Schools was coupled with a direct threat of taking action against the Committee of Management, presuming, that in case no action is taken it shall be inferred that the committee is hand in gloves with the Principal. Thus, the letter dated 8th September, 2009 became the basis of all the trouble.
(3.) THE Manager of the institution forthwith proceeded to convene a meeting of the Committee of Management which passed a resolution on 14th September, 2009 whereby it was resolved to suspend the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner had used unparliamentary language against some Class-IV employee of the institution. No other allegation was made either in the letter dated 8th September, 2009 or in the suspension order dated 14th September, 2009. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to submit a reply to the same whereafter the Committee of Management in its short counter affidavit states that the petitioner avoided in giving reply on one pretext or the other. The short counter affidavit further discloses that an alleged chargesheet was prepared on 3rd October, 2009, which, apart from the charges indicated in the suspension order, contained a large number of other charges including financial irregularities which the petitioner was called upon to answer.;