JUDGMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. Sri Y.K. Saxena who represents the respondent No. 3, has made a statement at bar that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition be disposed on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition.
2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Committee of Management, Sri Nehru Inter College, Auraiya through its Manager, Sri Radha Krishna Chaturvedi and Sri Radha Krishna Chaturvedi in his personal capacity as Manager of the College, seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1st January, 2004 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Auraiya, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows.
In the district of Auraiya, there is an Intermediate College in the name and style of Sri Nehru Inter College (hereinafter referred to as “the College”). It is recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and receives grant from the State fund. The provisions of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable. According to the petitioners, Awadh Narain Tripathi, respondent No. 3, who was officiating as Principal in the College, was placed under suspension vide resolution dated 15th March, 1989 passed by the Committee of Management. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after holding enquiry, the Committee of Management resolved to dismiss the respondent No. 3 from service. The resolution was passed on 22nd October, 1989 and in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Act, 1982 the papers were forwarded through the District Inspector of Schools for approval of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission vide order dated 5th July, 1991 granted approval to the proposed punishment of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 challenged the approval granted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission before this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22164 of 1991. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 24th May, 1995. The decision/approval granted by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission was set aside and the matter was remanded to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission to take a fresh decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission is yet to take a decision and the matter is pending there.
4. It may be mentioned here that against the judgment and order dated 24th May, 1995 passed by this Court a special appeal was filed being Special Appeal No. 651 of 1995, which was dismissed on 2nd May, 1998. The respondent No. 3 was once again given the charge of the officiating Principal vide order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 5th January, 2001. In the meantime, it appears that the Joint Director of Education had passed an order purporting to be under Section 6(3) of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 appointing an Authorised Controller. Vide order dated 6th September, 2002 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51936 of 2002, the operation of the order dated 6th September, 2002, extending the term of the Authorised Controller, was stayed. Consequently, the Joint Director of Education issued an order on 23td December, 2002 directing the Authorised Controller to handover the Management of the College to the Committee of Management (petitioners) which was restored on 26th December, 2002.
5. A dispute regarding the Committee of Management and the Manager was raised by one Arvind Kumar Shukla who approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3842 of 2003, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2003. This Court directed the Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, who is the Chairman of the Regional Committee to ensure that the dispute of rival elections is adjudicated by the Regional Committee after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides within six seeks from the date a certified copy of the order is presented by any of the parties before the Joint Director of Education. The Court did not find any error in the order of the District Inspector of Schools handing over charge to the present petitioners. The matter relating as to who is the validly elected Committee of Management, is still pending before the Regional Committee.
6. The Committee of Management in its meeting held on 16th November, 2003 considered the alleged irregularities and indiscipline committed by the respondent No. 3 and decided to place him under suspension. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 was placed under suspension vide order dated 1st December, 2003. The petitioners also served a charge-sheet on the respondent No. 3 on 14th December, 2003. As required under Section 16-G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management sent the papers regarding suspension of the respondent No. 3 to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 1st January, 2004 had declined to grant approval to the suspension of the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are still pending before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and have not been finalized and it is a case of double jeopardy. The other ground on which suspension has been disapproved is that there is a dispute regarding the Committee of Management, which is pending before the Regional Committee.
7. I have heard Sri A.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Y.K. Saxena who represents the respondent No. 3.
8. Even though the District Inspector of Schools, has been impleaded by name as the respondent No. 4, the Court does not feel it necessary to issue any notice to him and hear him.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had declined to grant approval to the order of suspension of the respondent No. 3 on wholly irrelevant material and consideration. He submitted that the ground on which the respondent No. 3 has been placed under suspension related to the period subsequent to the period for which the disciplinary proceedings are pending before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and the District Inspector of Schools has committed a manifest error of law in holding that the present disciplinary proceedings amount to double jeopardy. He submitted that if a teacher or Principal has committed acts of indiscipline and financial irregularities subsequent to earlier disciplinary proceedings, the Committee of Management is wholly within its right to take action and it will not amount to double jeopardy. Sri Singh further submitted that the petitioners are the lawfully elected Committee of Management of the College and even this Court, vide order dated 11th February, 2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3842 of 2003, had upheld the action of the District Inspector of Schools in handing over charge to the petitioners. Thus, he submitted that the second ground on which the District Inspector of Schools had declined to grant approval, cannot be sustained in law.
10. Sri Y.K. Saxena, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is only an interim Manager and the matter as to which is the real Committee of Management, is yet to be decided by the Regional Committee and, therefore, the petitioners could not have taken any decision in placing the respondent No. 3 under suspension and initiating any disciplinary proceeding against him. In support thereof, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Deo Pandey v. Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 UPLBEC 549. He further submitted that as the term of the Committee of Management had admittedly expired, the last valid selections having been held in the year 1997, the Committee of Management cannot be permitted to continue for a single day after the expiry of three years and one month. Thus, he submitted that the petitioners have no jurisdiction to place the respondent No. 3 under suspension or to take any disciplinary proceedings. In support of this submission, he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, Deoria and, others v. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, VII Region and Ors., reported in 2000(2) ESC 788 (All.).
11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that even though the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 22nd August, 1989 are still pending before the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, yet the present disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the respondent No. 3 on the alleged acts of indicipline and irregularities committed by the respondent No. 3 during the period of 2000-2003. Thus, it constitutes a separate act for which the disciplinary proceeding could be taken against the respondent No. 3 and it does not amount to double jeopardy. The view of the District Inspector of Schools is, thus, based on wholly irrelevant material and consideration.
12. So far as to whether the petitioners could have taken any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 3 is concerned, it may be mentioned here that this Court vide order dated 11th February, 2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3842 of 2003, had upheld the action of the District Inspector of Schools in handing over the charge of the Committee of Management to the present petitioner No. 2. Thus, till such time the Regional Committee decides the dispute as to which is the real Committee of Management of the College, the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to continue to act as Manager of the College.
13. In the case of Nand Deo Pandey (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Committee which is proceeding to enquire into the conduct of a teacher, should be properly constituted Committee of Management of the College and since the issue is pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Director of Education, the Committee which is held to be properly constituted Committee of Management by the authority, will be at liberty to conduct the proceedings to enquire against the delinquent teacher and had stayed the enquiry till the decision of the properly constituted Committee of Management. In the present case, I find that the petitioner No. 2 is continuing on the post of the Manager in terms of the order passed by this Court on 11th February, 2003. The dispute is still to be decided by the Regional Committee. Since the petitioner No. 2 is acting as the Manager, he cannot be a moot spectator in the acts of in discipline or irregularities committed by any teacher or employee in the College. Action has to be taken. May be, for a temporary period. Placing a person under suspension is a remedial action which even the acting Manager is entitled to take till the decision of the dispute of the Committee of Management. Thus, there is no justification for saying that the interim Manager or interim Committee of Management cannot take remedial action as to irregular activities, act of indiscipline or insubordination during the period the said Committee of Management is functioning.
14. So far as the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Inter College (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that if the term of the Committee of Management has expired, it cannot be allowed to function any further. But, in the present case, from the material placed on record, it does not appear that the petitioners’ term has expired. A dispute has been raised regarding the Committee of Management based on the election held in the year 2000. Thus, the aforesaid decision is of no help to the respondent No. 3.
15. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to uphold the impugned order. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1st January, 2004 is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.