Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE C/M, CHACHA NEHRU UCHATTAR MADHAMIK VIDYALAYA versus U.P.SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The C/M, Chacha Nehru Uchattar Madhamik Vidyalaya v. U.P.Secondary Education Service Commission And Others - WRIT - A No. 19127 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 8221 (1 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1985

The Committee of Management

Chacha Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik

Vidyalaya, Majhawan, Kanpur

Versus

U.P. Secondary Education Services

Selection Commission and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla.J.

Committee of Management Chacha Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Majhawan, Kanpur, through it Manager, Sri Ram Kishore Gupta has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 31.10.1985 taken by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission, Allahabad approving the report of sub committee under covering letter dated 1st November, 1985.

Brief background of the case is that in the district of Kanpur there is recognised institution known as Chacha Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Majhawan. Said institution is duly recognised institution and affairs of the said institution is to be run and managed under the U.P. Act No. II of 1921. Said institution is also grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. In the said institution selection and appointment is to be made strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained U.P. Act No. V of 1982 and punishment can be inflected only after approval is taken by the Services Commission now Selection Board. In the said institution Staya Narain Tiwari has appointed as Principal on 02.01.1984. It has been stated that various short coming were being noted in respect of his functioning then preliminary inquiry was got conducted and thereafter Managing Committee of institution by means of resolution asked the Manager to submit chargesheet and thereafter charge-sheet was served on 11.02.1985 to which reply was submitted on 23rd February, 1985. Petitioner while submitting reply to the said charge sheet requested for supplying various documents. On 09.03.1985, respondent no. 2 again requested to supply copy of certain documents. It has been stated that inquiry committee on 16.03.1985 asked respondent no. 2 appear before  Enquiry Committee and also further stated in case he intended to see any document and other relevant records he could see the same before the Enquiry Committee. Reply has been submitted by respondent no. 2 on 13.04.1986 to the charge sheet. It has been contended that repeated opportunities was given but respondent no. 2 did not appear and avoided the same and thereafter a publication has been made in the daily newspaper. Thereafter Inquiry Officer has submitted its report on 02nd April, 1985. Committee of Management again issued notice to respondent no. 2 to appear on 10.04.1985 before the Enquiry Committee but respondent no. 2 has chosen not to appear and again opportunity has been provided and thereafter Committee of Management passed resolution dispensing with the service of respondent no. 2 and after said resolution has been passed in order to get said action approved under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 entire papers were transmitted and thereafter one member committee took up the matter and submitted its report and thereafter U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission has refused to accord approval. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that action taken by the Committee of Management is motivated one and further it has been sought to be contended that resolution itself is illegal as Committee of Management is not properly constituted. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit details of office bearers and member and inter se relationship has been mentioned to show that constitution of Managing Committee is contrary to the provision of of Scheme of Administration. It has been contended that entire proceedings are motivated in the present case and charges are cooked up and fake and it has also been contended that on 23.03.1985 moment he received registered letter of Convenor of  Enquiry Committee to be present before the Enquiry Committed on 28.03.1985 he appeared but at that point of time no one was present in the institution. In paragraphs 32-33 it has been suggested that entire proceedings are ex parte.

Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 has also been filed and therein stand taken by Commission has been sought to be supported.

After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. Original record in respect of disciplinary proceedings has been produced on the basis of which    U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission has proceeded to take decision.

Sri H.P. Singh, advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission has totally transgressed and over stepped its jurisdiction, inasmuch as selection Commission has no authority of scrutinize the evidence as has been sought to be done in the present case, as such order passed is totally unsustainable and writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Sri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Rahul Jain, Advocate and Sri R.P. Dubey, Advocate contended with vehemence that while exercising power under Section 21 Commission is enjoined upon duties to go into the merit of the case and apply its mind independently to the question whether evidence on record justified removal or not, and exactly same exercise has been undertaken.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the view which has been taken by Courts in respect of authority under section 21 of U.P. Act No. V of 1982 is being looked into:

"A. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management Bishmbhar Saran Vaidic Inter College Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission, 1996 (2) ESC 230 has taken the view that while exercising power under Section 21, Commission in respect of grant or not to grant approval is enjoined upon duty to go into the merits of the case and apply its mind independently to the question whether evidence on record justified removal or not. The Commission has been described as high powered body and as a body entrusted with the main function of supervising the actions taken by the management against teachers, and in this background, it has been mentioned that the Commission has to discharge its responsibility circumspectively and the Commission cannot be exercise its function effectively unless it scrutinizes the material and applies its mind carefully to the fact on record.  

B. Said  judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Committee of Management Bishmbhar Saran Vaidic Inter College Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission, 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 244 has been followed in the case of Committee of Management M.M.I.C Vs. S.E.S. C 2004 (1) UPLBEC 20 and it has been reiterated that Commission/Board is to apply its mind independently to the question whether the evidence on record justified the removal or not, and in this regard to carefully apply its mind to the fact on record and merit of action taken then it can also direct for lesser punishment, if case so justified.

On the touchstone of the judgement quoted above arguments which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission has no authority to appreciate the evidence is incorrect submission. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission has fully authority to apply its mind independently to the question as to whether the evidence on record justified the removal or not, at the point of time when proposal is to be  accorded approval by the authority concerned.

Here in the present case record in question reveals that charge sheet was given to the petitioner without appending any documentary evidence whatsoever in support of the same. Original copy of the charge-sheet has been perused. Said charge sheet nowhere reflects as to on what basis aforesaid charges are based and in support of charge sheet no documentary evidence has been filed neither name of any witness has been mentioned. Reply has been submitted by the petitioner denying the allegation levelled in the charge sheet. Service Commission has considered that in the charge sheet, no details had been furnished as to from which student petitioner extracted money to issue certificate of Moral Science and in case there were written complaints why they were not shown as evidence in the charge-sheet. In domestic enquiry oral evidence of said students have been got recorded, and same has been sought to be fortified by oral statement of parents. Service Commission has formed opinion that as complaints did not form part of the record as such credibility of such charge is doubtful. Once Services Commission has formed such an opinion, which can neither be termed to be arbitrary or unreasonable, there is no occasion to interfere. Similarly Service Commission has found the complaint of Sri Ram Naresh Singh and Sri Ram Narain as motivated and reasons have also been indicated for the same, copy of complaints were not all appended with charge sheet and one complaint was undated and other had been moved after seven months. Selection Commission in overall situation after scrutinising evidence has concluded that proceedings actuated with motives. Service record has also been perused, and it has also been noted that proceedings undertaken are in violation of natural justice. U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission which is an expert body has considered each and every aspect of the matter then view taken cannot be said to be unreasonable, perverse and illegal,  giving occasion to interfere with the said order of dismissal.

Consequently, writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Dated 1st May, 2007

Dhruv          


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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