Judgment:
W.P.No.13134/2006 20.08.2013 Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul jain, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri R.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5.
This petition filed in the year 2006 is for the purposes of grant of salary for the period the petitioner has alleged that he has worked in the school known as 'Queen Mary's Convent Higher Secondary School', Sausar, District Chhindwara.
It is put forth that the said school is being run by a Society and the said Society is receiving grant-in- aid for the purposes of running the school from the State Government under the M.P.Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapkon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetanot Ka Sanday) Adhiniyam, 1978, and the rule made thereunder.
However, even after receipt of the grant, the persons like petitioner who were appointed on regular basis and were discharging the duties have not been paid their salary.
The complaints were made against the improper functioning of the then Principal of the school who has in fact embezzled the amount of grant by sanctioning it in the names of those who were not working in the school.
Various complaints were made by the petitioner and others but nothing was done, therefore the petition was filed.
The respondents/State has filed the return contending that on a complaint made, some sort of enquiry was got conducted and the Sub Divisional Officer gave his report categorically stating that after holding an enquiry the Tehsildar of the area has found that no such allegations were correct or true and that there were no irregularities committed by the Society or the school authorities in maintaining the account of grant.
The Society has filed a return and has contended that the persons like petitioner have remained absent from duty and on account of this they were discontinued from service.
That being so, the petitioner was not paid the salary.
The experience certificate produced by the petitioner has been disputed.
Certain documents have been filed which are said to be proof of the fact that the claim made by the petitioner was misconceived.
By filing rejoinder and making amendment in the writ petition, petitioner has contended that those documents were virtually prepared and produced before this Court to cause a prejudice against the petitioner.
Virtually no enquiry whatsoever was conducted in rightful manner by the authorities and as such the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted.
It is contended that if these facts are examined, it would be clear that the respondents No.4 and 5 have misappropriated the amount of grant for their benefits and as such the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted.
These are all the disputed facts which need to be proved by recording evidence of the parties and cannot be taken into consideration in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
If there are disputed facts, settled law is that the petition is not to be entertained by the Court, on the other hand the parties are to relegated to the competent authority for an enquiry, as it is not possible for this Court to record the evidence of the parties in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is also to be kept in mind that the grant-in-aid is paid by the State Government under the Act aforesaid from the public exchequer for the purposes of running the educational institution and it is not meant for the pleasure of the authorities of the society or the school.
The District Education Officer of the district concerned is in fact custodian of said grant inasmuch as after release of the grant for the district, the same is distributed in accordance to the sanction granted by the State Government by the District Education Officer of the concerned district.
He is also required to see that the grant is properly utilized for the purposes for which it is granted and not misappropriated in illegal manner.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, since no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the District Education Officer, Chhindwara, on the other hand the enquiry was got conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer or some other authorities, it would be appropriate to direct the District Education Officer, Chhindwara, to conduct an enquiry with respect to the release of grant, its utilization by respondents No.4 and 5 and to examine whether the petitioner was ever appointed in the said school was continuously working in the school as claimed and whether the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary or not.
In case it is found that the petitioner was entitled to payment of salary, the said amount be paid from the grant payable to respondents No.4 and 5 by the District Eduction Officer.
In case, it is found that there were any illegalities committed by the authorities of respondents No.4 and 5 in maintaining the accounts of grant or its proper utilization, the said authority will take suitable action in accordance to law against the erring person or employees of the Society concerned.
For the aforesaid purposes, the petitioner will make appropriate application annexing with it all the relevant documents before the District Education Officer, Chhindwara.
The respondents No.4 and 5 will also furnish their information and the accounts as required by the District Education Officer.
On receipt of application and documents, the enquiry be completed within a period of four months from the date of making of application.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge b