Ravi S. Dhavan, J.@mdashThe Petitioner, Syed Yaqeen Ahmad, is the Head Master at the Darul-Ulum Ahela Sunnat Madarsa Ashrafia Mishbabul Ulum, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh, who, in effect, claims that this Court should interfere in the order of suspension dated 3 February, 1993, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The contention in the writ petition is that during the course of examination duties on 3 February, 1993, the President of the Committee of Management, aforesaid, misbehaved with the Petitioner. The Petitioner lodged a complaint with the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Respondent No. 1. The copy of the complaint is the Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The order of the suspension continues, on behalf of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the order of the suspension is without Jurisdiction and it ought to be stayed.
2. The first question which arises is whether en an order of suspension passed by a private party is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court when a grievance petition or a visitation is available to a State authority and there is yet time for the State authority to interfere in the matter and the Petitioner short circuits the procedure.
3. In answer to the proposition, as submitted en a point of law In the writ petition itself, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Arun Tandon, Advocate cites the decision of the Supreme Court as
4. Thus, it is contended that if an institution receives grant-in-aid, a writ is maintainable. The submission on its own is too generalised and the citation has been torn out of its context. If the decision of the Supreme Court is to apply to the circumstances of the present case then the Petitioner must first permit the State authority which controls the grant-in-aid to take an initiative to consider the Petitioner�s grievance. This, the Petitioner has not done. From a perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Dispute Settlement Committee in question was exercising it''s powers after it had had an occasion to interfere by visitation or otherwise. The Petitioner has not permitted this.
5. The authority which would control the institution should anything go wrong is the District Inspector of Schools, concerned. Only when this authority, regard being had to the circumstances that the institution receives the grant-in-aid, either acts incorrectly or declines to act at all, In either case this Court may be approached by a writ petition. If the decision of the authority, inclusive of an alternate remedy, is manifestly erroneous and satires from an error apparent on the face of the record then a writ of certiorari may be issued for the examination of the decision on whether it is incorrect. On the other hand, if the authority declines to act within the reasonable time, a writ of certiorari will seek the record and a mandamus will require the authority to act in accord with the powers vested in such an authority.
6. This is exactly what happened before the Supreme Court and the only principle which was laid down was that once an authority has been put under an obligation to make a State grant to an institution then there is a corresponding duty on the authority to monitor the Institutions activities within the control prescribed.
7. This petition, apparently has been filed for a stay order and this Court would be slow to lend itself to issue indiscriminate writs as it is accepted that whether it is the Respondent No. 2 (Committee of Management, Daiul Ulum Ahele Sunnat Madarsa Asharfia Mishbahul Ulum, Mubarakpur. Azamgarh. through its Manager) or the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Respondent No. l, the occasion to interfere on a clear complaint has not arisen as the Petitioner has yet to complain to the appropriate authority, and further the stage to do so has not arisen. On whatever aggrieves the Petitioner, it is accepted that the Manyata Avem Sewa Nlyamawali Arabi Tatha Farasi Madarse Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. These regulations in this regard are relevant and are reproduced
33. Kisi karmchari ke birudh anushanatmak karyawahi karne ka nirnay liya jata hai to karmchari ko spasth arop patra diya jayega. Doshi wakti ko arop patra pane ke tin saptah ke bhitar apna paksha prastut karne ka pura mauka diya jayega.
34. Yadi prabandhikaran dwara kisi Ayadhyapak/karmchari ko sewa se prithak karne ka nirnaya liya jata hai to niskasan se purba widhik karya-wahi abashyak hogee, Pure karyawahi ke bibaran nirikshan Arabi Madarsa, U.P. Allehabad ko preshit karne honge. Yadi karyawahi men koi niyamitata yaye gai to nirikshak ko yaha adhikar hoga ke waha apne sujhaw prabandh samiti ko bheje.
37, Shiksha bibhag ke kisi adhikari dwara madarsa ka kabhi bhi nirikshan kiya ja sakeya aur sanstha ke abhilekh uske sambikshan hetu uplabdh kiye jayenge. Nirikshan men athawa anyatha jo trutiyan jankari men ayege athawa yah paya Jayega ki manyata ke aek ya adhik sharto ka palan nehi kiya ja raha hai to sanstha ko un trutiyon ke nirakaran karne ke liya likhit rup se nirdesh diye jayenge.
8. The first aspect of the matter i� that if disciplinary/administrative action is taken then the Management is obliged to give a clear allegation on record or deliver charges to the employee, who in turn is also obliged to file his reply within three weeks.
9. The purpose of this regulation is that the Management mast not evade giving specific charges to the concerned employee, The employee also cannot stretch the departmental proceedings without filing his reply. Thus, neither the Management nor the employee, concerned, have an escape from their obligations, the Management fro a giving specific allegations to the employee and the employee on giving his answer to the charges against him.
10. Regulation 34 gives the guidelines when it is intended to terminate the services of an employee. Then a disciplinary proceeding or an enquiry will be necessary. The record of the entire disciplinary proceeding will be placed before the Inspector. Arabi Madarsa, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad This Regulations further stipulates that should the Inspector, concerned, find any irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, in that case he would have the right to send his proposal or suggestion to the Management Committee of the Institution. This is a right of visitation given to the Inspector to scrutinise the action of the Management. This right of the Inspector to inspect or visit is further borne out by Clause 37 of the Regulations. If there is a deviation from the procedure, a person aggrieved, it implied, can at the appropriate stage approach the Inspector. But, there is a stage to do it. Two conditions have to be satisfied. First, if the Management proposes to take action against an employee then it is required to crytalise the allegations formally to the employee and the employee, on the other band, must file his reply not later than three weeks. Thereafter whatever action the Management may take, it is to transmit to the record of the proceedings in this regard to the Inspector. This does not rule out the alternatives that the employee may also approach the Inspector. In the present case, the Inspector has yet to see the record.
11. This writ petition does not occasion the issue of a writ of certiorari and, thus, this petition Is dismissed in limine.
12. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of scheduled charges within a week.
