Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.R.YADAV versus D.I.O.S.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S.R.Yadav v. D.I.O.S. - WRIT - A No. 18173 of 1994 [2005] RD-AH 5727 (14 November 2005)


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.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18173 of 1994

Siya Ram Yadava Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat & others

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.  For the reasons stated in the application to recall the order dated  24.11.2004, which are good and sufficient, the order dated 24.11.2004 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution is recalled and the writ petition was heard on merit.

The petitioner was serving as Class IV employee in Dayanand Gram Udhyogik Higher Secondary School, Bodhapur, District Kanpur Dehat.  He was served with a charge sheet  levelling as many as eight charges of indiscipline including beating of teachers,  tearing up register of the college, abusing the teachers as well as realising money from the SC and OBC students for helping them in obtaining scholarship.  By charge No.6 the petitioner was charged with snatching the attendance register from the office of the Principal and threatening the Principal as well as the Head Clerks.

The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet.  An inquiry was held by Shri Anand Behari Lal Tripathi, an Asstt. Teacher.    He found the petitioner to be guilty of each of the charges and recommended his dismissal.  The Principal by his order dated 8.7.82, found the charges to be established and dismissed the petitioner from service.  An appeal filed by the petitioner, which was also his reply, the report of the Inquiry Officer was dismissed by the Managing Committee.  The District Inspector of School, thereafter, decided his representation after summoning the entire record and  finding of petitioner was guilty of charges and that he was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that procedure provided in Regulation 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,  1921 have not been followed.  The Principal did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after receiving the inquiry report  and did not fix any date for personal hearing.    The documents required in respect of charges demanded by the petitioner were not served upon him and that the Principal was a member of the Managing Committee and had influenced the Committee in deciding the appeal against him.

I have gone through the record and the counter affidavit.  It is stated in para 5 of the Counter Affidavit of Shri Ram Krishna Pandey, Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat that " it is further stated that the Principal of the college as also given notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the dismissal order dated 8.7.82.  It is wholly misconceived to suggest that the Committee of management lost its right to decide the appeal after six weeks as provided under Regulation 31 (2) of the Regulation."

There were serious charges against the petitioner including beating and abusing the Principal and teachers and snapping the attendance register.  The record shows that the petitioner had become nuisance to the institution.  He was given full and adequate opportunity to defend himself.  The inquiry report was accepted after giving opportunity to the petitioner.    The presence of the Principal cannot vitiate the proceedings as he was assisting  the Managing Committee and no allegations have been made against any member of the Managing Committee of any bias or malafide nor any Member of the Managing Committee has been impleaded.   The District Inspector  of school has satisfied that the procedure for penalty was followed by the disciplinary authority.

The writ petition has not merit and is dismissed.




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.