R.H. Zaidi, J.@mdashInstant petition has been filed by the Committee of Management of Balbhadra Narain Inter College. Majhauli Raj Deoria,
challenging the validity of the order dated 14.7.95 passed by the Dy. Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur under Sub-section (3) of
Section 6 of U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of
1971) hereinafter referred to as the Act, whereby the management of the College has been superseded and the Account Officer of the District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria has been appointed as Authorised Controller for a period of one year, from the date, the Authorised Controller takes
over the charge.
2. It was on 7.8.95 that time was granted to the Respondents to file counter affidavit and the operation of the impugned order was also stayed.
Since the counsel for the parties have exchanged their counter and rejoinder affidavits and as desired by them, I have heard the matter finally.
3. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that it was in the month of June, 1993 that the election of the office bearers and
members of the Committee of Management was held and Sri Awadesh Pd. Mall was elected as Manager of the College, besides other office
bearers. His signatures were attested by the Distt. Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management since then has been looking after the
affairs of the College in accordance with law, Respondent No. 4, who happens to be the Principal of the College, started misconducting himself
and misbehaving with the members of Staff. Several complaint of mis-appropriation of money were also received against the Respondent No. 4.
He also removed all the relevant papers from the office of the College and did not return the same inspite of the direction given to him in this
regard. On 24.2.93, he locked the main gate of the College and did not permit the students and members of staff to enter the premises of the
College. In this connection, a complaint was lodged by the Manager to Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, thereupon, he got opened the said
lock. Inspite of the intervention made by the district authorities, Respondent No. 4 continued to misbehave and act in irresponsible manner.
Complaint regarding his misbehaviour and misconduct was also made to the District Inspector of Schools on 26.2.93. An First Information Report
was also lodged against him with the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Deoria, whereupon a criminal crime case No. 141/93 u/s 406, I.P.C. was
registered on 12.7.93. Since the Respondent No. 4 was continuously indulging in the act of misbehavior and misconduct and has been disobeying
the orders passed by the: Manager and was guilty of serious charges, therefore, Committee of Management vide Resolution dated 30.6.93
resolved to suspend him and after following the procedure prescribed under law, the Committee of Management vide its Resolution dated 27.8.93
proposed to terminate the services of Respondent No. 4. Resolution was submitted to the Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Ayog Evam
Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad by registered post on 1.9.1993. The aforesaid papers were received in the office of the Commission, but no action
whatsoever was taken on the same inspite of the several applications and representation made by the Petitioner, consequently, Petitioner was
obliged to file a Writ Petition No. 315 of 1995 for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Commission to take decision
in accordance with law on the papers submitted by the Petitioner.
4. On the request made by the learned standing counsel, time was granted to him to file counter affidavit, but till date the same has not been filed.
Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, vide order dated 23.12.94 directed Respondent No. 4 to withhold the salary for the month of December,
1994 of the entire teaching and non-teaching staff of the College at the instance of Respondent No. 4. The validity of the said order passed by
Respondent No. 2 on 23.12.94 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2405 of 1995. This court on 27.7.95 was pleased to stay the operation of the
impugned order dated 23.12.94. Respondent No. 2 with a view to harass the Petitioner, served another notice upon it on 9.2.95 calling upon to
submit reply. The Petitioner immediately submitted reply of the said notice. Respondent No. 2 instead of taking any action against Respondent No.
4, issued illegal direction to the Petitioner on 24.4.95. The validity of the said order was challenged by the Petitioner in this court through Writ
Petition No. 5270 of 1995. This court, however, declined to interfere in the said order holding that the same does not amount to an interference in
the discipline of the College. Respondent No. 2 acting wholly arbitrarily, thereafter, vide his order dated 23.2.95, placed the account of the
College under single operation without following the procedure under law. The order of single operation passed by Respondent No. 2 is
apparently biased and arbitrary and the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The validity of the said
order was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6279 of 1995. However, the operation of the impugned order was not stayed and
Respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 2 has been acting at the behest of Respondent No. 4 illegally. The Dy.
Director of Education instead of taking suitable action against Respondent No. 4, issued show cause notice dated 27.4.95, calling upon the
Petitioner to submit the reply of the charges levelled by him. The Petitioner gave a detailed parawise reply explaining the charges levelled against it.
Thereafter, Distt. Inspector of Schools submitted his report to the Respondent No. 1, who without applying his mind to the facts of the case,
simply relying upon the said report was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 14.7.95 in contravention with the provisions of Sub-section (3)
of Section 6 of the Act, wholly arbitrary.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, the facts stated in the Writ Petition have been controverted and it has been
asserted that the impugned order was passed by Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case.
7. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 6 of the Act provide as under:
6. (1) Where the Inspector on the basis of an inspection of an institution or its records or otherwise is satisfied that its management has committed
default in complying with any direction given u/s 4 or with any provision of Section 3 or Section 5, he may recommend to the Regional Deputy
Director, Education that action be taken against the institution under Sub-section (2).
(2) On receipt of a recommendation under Sub-section (1), the Regional Deputy Director Education may call upon the management to comply
with the said direction or provision or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended.
(3) Where the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause or the Regional Deputy Director, Education considers the cause shown
to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order and
authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over the management of the institution for the said period:
Provided that the Regional Deputy Director Education may where he considers it necessary or expedient so to do:
(i) extend the said period from time to time, so however, that the period so extended does not exceed five years in the aggregate; or
(ii) revoke the order at any time:
Provided further that nothing in Clause (ii) of the preceding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this section.
8. It is evident from the aforesaid statutory provision that the Dy. Director of Education on receipt of the recommendation of the Inspector of
Schools is required to call upon the management to comply with the directions or provisions or to show cause within a week why the management
should not be suspended and where the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause or the Regional Dy. Director of Education
considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for a period of one year and authorise any person to
take over the management of the institution.
9. In the present case, instead of adopting the procedure prescribed under the law, Respondent No. 1 has firstly issued a show cause notice dated
26.4.95 to the Manager of the Institution calling upon him as to why the management of the institution be not superseded. Petitioner submitted a
detailed reply within the time prescribed by Respondent No. 1 and requested for dropping the proceeding and discharging notice. It was requested
that the Principal of the institution be directed to return the record of the institution, which was taken away by him illegally. Thereafter, Respondent
No. 1 solicited a report dated 28.6.95 from Distt. Inspector of Schools and he has simply quoted in verbatim the findings recorded by the Distt.
Inspector of Schools and recommendation made to him. Not only the findings, but the recommendations of the Distt. Inspector of Schools have
also been copied by the Respondent No. 1 and the order has been passed by him without applying his mind to the facts of the case at all, wholly
arbitrary.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has rightly submitted that the Dy. Director of Education did not apply his mind independenty to the facts of
the case. He has nowhere recorded the finding on charges levelled against the Petitioner nor held that the cause shown by the Petitioner was
insufficient; but has passed the impugned order superseding the management of the institution, contrary to the provisions and Rules framed therein.
The: Deputy Director of Education was required to scrutinize the material on record and he was required to find out as to whether the
Management has committed any default in complying with the directions made u/s 4. No such finding was recorded by the Deputy Director of
Education and the management was superseded Illegally, merely on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Inspector of Schools.
The impugned order dated 14.7.1995 passed by Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, legally not sustainable. The Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.7.1995 is hereby quashed.