Committee of Management Through Its Manager and Yogendra Pal Sharma Son of Late Ram Chandra Sharma Elected Manager Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Education (Madhyamik) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 3. sri radhey shayam has urged that once the board was satisfied that the charges of financial irregularities against the principal were proved, it was not open to the board to substitute the punishment proposed by the committee of management. sharma has urged that the finding recorded by the board against the petitioner is wholly unjustified as the board has failed to consider the material on record, and as such has arrived at a total wrong conclusion. thus both the adversaries to the litigation are dis-satisfied with the order passed by the board. the employee contends that once the board was satisfied that the ultimate punishment of termination was unwarranted then the board ought to have simply disapproved the action and not awarded the punishment on its own. 5. a perusal of the conclusion drawn indicated that the board did hold the petitioner responsible for the lapses on his part, but the board failed to record a finding supported by reasons as to why a lessor punishment was awarded, than that which was proposed by the committee of management. 615, and after considering the impact of the judgment of the apex court as well as of another division bench of our court, it has been held that the board can scrutinise the evidence in order to see as to whether the charges are established or not, and whether the punishment proposed is commensurate to the charges levelled against the delinquent employee.a.p. sahi, j. 1. these two writ petitions question the validity of the order dated 23.7.2005 as communicated by the secretary of the u.p. secondary education service commission selection board, allahabad dated 2.8.2005, whereby the proposal of the termination of sri suresh chandra gupta, principal of yogananand ram narain vaidic inter college, badaun has been turned down and the proposal of termination has been substituted by imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently with cumulative effect. the committee of management has filed writ petition no. 57071 of 2005 assailing the order to the extent it rejects the proposal of termination and writ petition no.58075 of 2005 has been filed by the delinquent employee sri suresh chandra gupta challenging the punishment awarded by the board by stopping of his two increments.2. i have heard sri radhey shayam, learned counsel for the petitioner/ management, sri p.c.sharma, advocate for the principal sri s.c.gupta and sri anil kumar yadav for the secondary education board.3. sri radhey shayam has urged that once the board was satisfied that the charges of financial irregularities against the principal were proved, it was not open to the board to substitute the punishment proposed by the committee of management. on the other hand, sri p.c.sharma has urged that the finding recorded by the board against the petitioner is wholly unjustified as the board has failed to consider the material on record, and as such has arrived at a total wrong conclusion. thus both the adversaries to the litigation are dis-satisfied with the order passed by the board. it is urged that the board could not have arrived at a conclusion, which reflects a sort of compromise to some how the other end the dispute. the committee contended that once the charges were found to have been proved, there was no justification for awarding a lessor punishment. the employee contends that once the board was satisfied that the ultimate punishment of termination was unwarranted then the board ought to have simply disapproved the action and not awarded the punishment on its own.4. alternatively, it was argued that the board, while reducing the punishment ought to have spelled out the reason for awarding a lessor punishment, the imposition of a lessor punishment could be justified, only upon a finding that the punishment proposed is excessive or unwarranted on the basis of the charges proved.5. a perusal of the conclusion drawn indicated that the board did hold the petitioner responsible for the lapses on his part, but the board failed to record a finding supported by reasons as to why a lessor punishment was awarded, than that which was proposed by the committee of management.6. the same argument would conversely apply in favour of the respondent/ employee, who has also urged that there is no reason disclosed so as to warrant imposition of any penalty in the circumstances indicated in the impugned order.7. accordingly judging from the point of view of the committee of management as also the delinquent employee, the impugned order is unsustainable. however, it is relevant to point out that board does have a power to issue any directions it deems fit in the case, as contained in regulation 8 of the u.p. secondary education service commission procedure for approval of punishment regulations, 1985. the same has also been interpreted by this court in the case of p.k. jain v. u.p.s.c. and ors., reported in 1997 (2) e.s.c. 847.8. sri radhey shayam relied on the case of managing committee v. u.p.s.e.s.s. board, reported in 2002(2) u.p.l.b.e.c. 1225 to urge, that the board cannot enter into a fresh enquiry and that the board cannot modify the punishment proposed by the management. the aforesaid decision has been considered in the case of committee of management sri chameli devi khandelwal girls inter college, mathura v. state of u.p. and ors., reported in 2005 (1) e.s.c. 615, and after considering the impact of the judgment of the apex court as well as of another division bench of our court, it has been held that the board can scrutinise the evidence in order to see as to whether the charges are established or not, and whether the punishment proposed is commensurate to the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. thus the board has power to assess the proportionality of the punishment proposed, and in view of this, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands explained. accordingly, the board would be under an obligation to decide the matter keeping in view the ratio of the case of khanderlwal girls inter college ( supra).9. in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.7.2005, as communicated through the secretary of the board vide letter dated 2.8.2005, is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above by recording reasons as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order before the secretary of the board 10. the writ petitions are allowed with no order as costs.