Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Prabha Gupta v. C/M Nand Ram Gupta Junior High School Rirus(Jalaun) & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 39176 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 13067 (27 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


   Court no. 7                                                                  

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39176 of 1999

Smt. Prabha Gupta         versus    Committee of Management

                                                      Nand Ram Gupta Junior High

                                                      School, Rirua (Jalaun), through

                                                      its Manager and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.


    Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

    The case of the petitioner is that she is M.A. B.Ed. and possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed as a teacher in an educational institution. She applied for the post of  Assistant Teacher in the Institution in question. The candidature of the petitioner having been found suitable, she was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Institution as back as in the year 1981. Approval to her appointment was sought by the Manager of the Institution from respondent no.3, the District Basic Education Officer, Jalaun at Orai, who is said to have accorded the approval to the appointment of five Assistant Teachers including the petitioner vide letter dated 12.2.1984 and placed at sl. No. 4 in the merit list dated 21.8.1984.

    It is stated that respondent no.1, the Committee of Management Nand Ram Gupta Junior High                                                        School, Rirua (Jalaun) had a grudge against the petitioner, hence a notice was sent to her that she had not deposited the monthly fee of the students of Class VIII collected by her. The petitioner in her reply dated 7.7.1997 to the notice stated that she has already deposited the entire fee of the students collected by her and the allegations made against her are incorrect and vague. Some amount from the salary of the petitioner was deducted for the months of April and August, 1998.  It is further stated that in the mean time having failed in its design the Principal made an attempt to molest her finding her alone and used derogatory language against her for which she made a representation to the Manager of the Institution on 17.4.1999 bringing the aforesaid facts to his notice and on coming to know about these acts of the Principal the Teachers and other Ministerial staff of the Association including the villagers and Gram Pradhan passed resolution against the conduct of Sri Ram Swarup Rajput respondent no.2,  Principal of the School.

It is also stated that as parallel committee claimed it to be the actual committee of management of the Institution and hence the dispute came up before the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits which could not be solved, therefore, the matter finally came up for consideration before the High Court in writ petition no. 35823 of 1999 (Smt. Kamla Devi & others Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and others).  The Court vide order dated 25.8.99 directed the petitioners to raise objection before Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits vide its order.

It is submitted that the Institution remained closed on account of summer vacation w.e.f. 20th May, 1999 to 30th June, 1999.  However, the petitioner was shown as suspended on 5.6.1999.  She made a representation dated 2.7.99 to the Principal as to how she has been shown as suspended teacher and demanded copy of suspension order if it has been passed. Respondent no.2 by means of letter dated 3.7.99 informed the petitioner that she is treated as suspended teacher.  On receipt of aforesaid letter of the Principal the petitioner sent a representation dated 3.7.99 to respondent nos. 1 and 3 requesting them to serve the copy of suspension order if any. Copy of the letter was also endorsed to the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and the District Basic Education Officer. Thereafter respondent no.2 treated the petitioner as a regular teacher and not as a suspended teacher and also took work from her, which is evident from perusal of the letter of the Principal dated 28.7.99. Since the petitioner was not even given copy of the said suspension order which is alleged to have been passed by respondent no.1 as such she again represented to respondent no.3 for giving a copy thereof.

It appears that respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 9.8.99, which was received by her on 18.8.99.  The petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated 9.8.99 issued by respondent no.1 on 20.8.99.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the suspension order dated 5.6.1999 passed respondent no.1.

The charges against the petitioner are as under:-

           ^^          vkjski

1&     xkWo dh jktuhfr ls izsfjr gksdj vius iz/kkuk/;kid Jh jkeLo#Ik jktiwr dks fuyfEcr djk;k gS tc fd muds fo#} pktZ yxk;s x;s gsA

2&     fon~;ky; esa ikVhZ oUnh cukuk ftlls v/;kiu dk;Z esa O;o/kku mRiUu gqvk gS ftlls vf/kd Nk= vuqrhZ.k gq, gSA

3&     vkidk xr vusdks o"kksZ dk fjtYV fuEu Lrj dk jgk gS A

4&    vius ifr jkts'k xqIrk }kjk vki fon~;ky; ds deZpkfj;ksa dks vHknz '''kCnks dk iz;ksx djkrh gS tc fd u rks ;g fon~;ky; izcU/k lfefr ds lnL; gS vkSj u gh fon~;ky; ds deZpkjh gS A

5&     vius fon~;ky; ds dqzN vfHkys[kksas esa gsjk Qsjh dh gS tks fon~;ky; o muds iz'kklu ds izfr /kks[kk /kMh Li"V gksrh gS A

6&   vki vusd okj vkdfLed vodk'k ij xbZ vkSj fon~;ky; vkus ij vkosnu Ik= fudky dj fiNrh rkjh[kksa esa gLrk{kj djus dh vkfn jgh gS A^^

It is urged by Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that from perusal of the charge sheet itself it is clear that the suspension order is unspecific wholly vague and not capable of being replied to as such the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

The counsel for the respondents has candidly admitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to rebut any evidence collected in the preliminary enquiry as it appears from the charge sheet.

It is submitted that the suspension of the petitioner is against the provisions of law and she has not been paid suspension allowance rather her salary has been stopped w.e.f. June, 1999; that no enquiry officer has so far been appointed till date to conduct the enquiry into the above charges and that the suspension cannot be stretched for unlimited period.

         In my opinion, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed for the reasons that since the proceedings of suspension having been held behind the back of the petitioner and that too without giving any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner, hence the suspension of the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice.  

        For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

Dated 27.7.2007






Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.