Judgment:
R.K. Dash, J.
1. Heard Sri R. K.Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ajai Bhanot, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava for the respondent No. 2.
2. Sri Sangam Lal is admittedly the principal of Laxmi Narain Inter College, Meja, Allahabad. The committee of management, petitioner herein placed him under suspension by order dated 4.7.2000 (Annexure-6). The charges against him, as would appear from Annexure-7 are that he by misusing his position as Principal appointed his nephew as class IV employee and that he embezzled scholarship amount sanctioned by District Social Welfare Officer for S, C. and O.B.C. students for which a criminal case has been started on the report of the concerned authority. As provided under law, the order of suspension has to be approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Accordingly, the committee of management reported on 11.7.2000 to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 copy whereof is at Annexure-8. The order of suspension was not approved by respondent No. 1 as would be evident from the order dated 19.8.2000 (Annexure-12), and this led the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a direction to quash the aforesaid order.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contents that the order of suspension was disapproved on two grounds, namely ; that the committee of management is not a validly constituted one and ; secondly the factual aspects as urged by the committee of management with regard to appointment of a relation and embezzlement of certain amount are not supported by materials. These two grounds taken by the District Inspector of Schools, submitted Sri Ojha, are contrary to the materials onrecord, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 2 had appointed his own relation as class IV employee in the institution and that a first Information report was lodged against him for his having embezzled the scholarship amount sanctioned by the Government. So far the other ground that there is no validly constituted committee of management, it Is urged that finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who is the authority under the Societies Registration Act, should have been taken into consideration by the District Inspector of Schools to hold that there is no properly constituted committee of management to take a decision against the Principal, respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has strenuously urged that as required under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, head of the Institution or a teacher shall be suspended on the grounds that the charges levelled against him are serious in nature to merit dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, that his continuance in service will affect the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and that a criminal case on moral turpitude is pending investigation or trial. In the present case, neither of these three conditions are satisfied. The criminal case instituted against the respondent No. 2 no more survives in view of the fact that the police has submitted final report. As regards the other allegations, no appointment was given by the respondent No. 2 to any of his relations while discharging his duty as head of the Institution. He further contends that there exists no society under the Societies Registration Act and election held by members of so-called society to form the managing committee is quite illegal and in that view of the matter, the managing committee should be held to be non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, no fault can be found with the District Inspector of Schools in not approving the decision of the managing committee.
5. Learned standing counsel in the course of arguments supports thedecision taken by the District Inspector of Schools.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the opinion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that there exists no society under the Societies Registration Act should not have weighed with the District Inspector of Schools to come to a finding that the committee of management is not properly constituted one. With regard to the questions of appointment to his relation and embezzlement of certain scholarship amount by respondent No. 2, the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools for the limited purpose of not approving suspension order cannot be faulted with.
7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. I may, however, observe, the committee of management may proceed with the enquiry and the respondent No. 2 will appear before the enquiry committee on 26.9.2000 and if so desires may file his explanation. He shall cooperate with the enquiry and in the event he does not cooperate, the committee of management will be free to take a decision to place him under suspension. All the relevant records of the institution, if are in possession of the respondent No. 2, shall be handed over to next senior lecturer of the Institution for safe custody by 19.9.2000. I hope and trust, the committee of management will not take such steps which will affect the whole atmosphere of the institution.