Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37024 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Veena Jauhari Respondent :- Cantonment Board Bareilly And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pulak Ganguly Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Prasant Mathur Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prashant Mathur for
respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 6.
By an earlier order dated 28.6.2010 this court required the District Magistrate,
Bareilly as well as the Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly to be present today
along with their personal affidavit categorically stating as to under which provision
of the Intermediate Education Act they have a right to interfere in the internal
management of a recognized intermediate college run by the Cantonment Board
and as to how the Sub Divisional Magistrate can direct the Chairman of the
Cantonment Board to appear before him in a matter pertaining to Principal/Teacher
of the institution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint was made by the
petitioner against some members of the Cantonment Board to the District
Magistrate, Bareilly. The Cantonment Board through its Chief Executive Officer
wrote a letter dated 26.5.2010 requiring the District Magistrate to send the
complaint to the Cantonment Board whereupon by the letter dated 2.6.2010 the
office of the District Magistrate sent a copy of the complaint to the Cantonment
Board and requested that an enquiry be conducted. According to Sri Ganguly the
District Magistrate has no jurisdiction under the Intermediate Education Act to
interfere in the management of a recognized intermediate college run by the
Cantonment Board.
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 28.6.2010 the District Magistrate and
Additional District Magistrate are present in person duly identified by Sri R.B.
Pradhan learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
They have filed their respective affidavits today as required by the court.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted on the basis of
averments made in the affidavit that the District Magistrate and the Additional
District Magistrate have not interfered in the management of the institution but
when a complaint was received by the District Magistrate from the petitioner
relating to the intermediate college run by the Cantonment Board the entire records
have been sent to the Cantonment Board for appropriate action.
Upon a perusal of the affidavit filed today it is clear that the said two authorities are
not in any manner interfering in the internal management of the institution.
Consequently their affidavits are taken on record and their future presence is
exempted
The petitioner alleges to be Principal of R.N. Tagore Inter College, Bareilly Cantt,
Bareilly and is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the
Chief Executive Officer, Bareilly Cantt as also by the resolution No.- A dated
29.5.2010 passed by the Cantonment Board whereby the petitioner has been
suspended and departmental proceedings are contemplated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some members of the board
were bent upon to remove the petitioner as principal and induct the respondent no.
5 in her place and hence the petitioner has been suspended and disciplinary
proceedings have been contemplated only for victimizing and harassing the
petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to various annexures of the writ petition to
show that the board has been making efforts even in the past to victimize the
petitioner.
The aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not very
well supported by averments to establish a case of malafide or bias. Although there
is a narration of facts of discrimination against the petitioner the same are not
clearly made out so as to enable this court to record a positive finding of malafide
against the respondents and bias against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid
facts the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned
orders/resolution on the ground of malafide and bias is not made out.
The suspension order has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Bareilly
Cantt. exercising his power under Rule-10-A-1-a of the Cantonment Fund Servant
Rule, 1937 and is in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The resolution of
the Board dated 29.05.2010 indicates that Board was of the view that the petitioner
was required to be suspended for the imputations made against her in the resolution
more particularly when the said suspension pending disciplinary proceedings is not
a penalty but an administrative action and so that the investigation or enquiry may
not be prejudiced by the petitioner where an apprehension has been made that she
would tamper with witnesses or documents. A further reason has been considered
in the resolution that her continuance in office is likely to seriously subvert
discipline in the office. The charges have not yet been given to the petitioner hence
this court cannot record any finding on them or hold whether they were sufficient
to place the petitioner under suspension.
The reasons given in the resolution of the Cantonment Board appear to be sufficient
for suspension of the petitioner and as such the resolution cannot be set aside by
this Court particularly when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated and it is for
the authority to record their findings on the dispute raised by the petitioner against
the action as and when she is served with the charges.
The suspension order is an order in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It
has been passed in exerecise of power under the rules of 1937 and hence cannot be
held to be without jurisdiction.
The suspension order contemplates disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
and hence cannot be held to be an order of punishment.
No grounds have been made out to set aside the suspension order which is in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and therefore the petitioner would have
sufficient opportunity to defend herself from the charges which may be leveled
against her in the disciplinary proceedings. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not controvert itself to perform
the duties of an enquiry officer by recording any findings of fact on the basis of the
allegations and counter allegations made between the parties. Moreover, in writ
jurisdiction when there are serious disputed question of fact the writ court would
not be able to record any finding only on the basis of exchange of affidavits and
their annexures. The said dispute requires to be decided by an authority which is
competent to consider the evidence of the parties and record its finding of fact.
Such a process has been initiated when the Chief Executive Officer, Bareilly Cantt.
has passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2010 by suspending the petitioner
pending disciplinary proceedings.
For the aforesaid reasons no interference is required in the impugned order of
suspension nor in the impugned resolution of the Cantonment Board. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sri Ganguly at this stage has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings should be
concluded within a time period fixed by this Court.
In so far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, it is provided that in case the
petitioner cooperates in the disciplinary proceedings there is no reason why the
respondent authority should not conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and
in accordance with law.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.7.2010
Pravin