Order
1. The Committee of Management of Bishambhar Sharma Vaidic Inter College, Baspur, Nainital and one of the members of the Committee of Management, who are the appellants 1 and 2 respectively have challenged the judgment and order dated 31-3-1993 of the High Court of Allahabad passed in Writ Petition No. 28663 of 1991. Appellant 1 had framed charges against Respondent 3, who was the Principal of the said college on the basis of the prima facie case made out against him and had asked him for his explanation for the said charges. Respondent 3 submitted his explanation before the Enquiry Committee which was appointed by the Committee of Management and contested the charges levelled against him. On the evidence produced before it, the Enquiry Committee found the charges proved and forwarded its report to the 1st appellant, Committee of Management. The Committee of Management thereupon issued a show-cause notice to Respondent 3 and asked for his explanation on the charges which were proved. Since it did not receive any explanation from Respondent 3, the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 12-10-1989 terminating his services. A copy of the said resolution, along with a copy each of the report of the Enquiry Committee and other relevant documents, was forwarded by the appellant Committee to the Commission as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (the ‘Act’) for the approval of the termination of the services of Respondent 3. The Commission went through the report of the Enquiry Committee and the evidence on which it was based and found that the charges were not proved. The Commission also found that the inquiry was vitiated because the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Committee but by the Committee of Management and hence the Enquiry Committee had violated principles of natural justice and the proceedings before the Enquiry Committee were mala fide. The Commission, therefore, did not approve of the action of the Committee of Management terminating the services of Respondent 3.
2. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the said order of the Commission on two grounds, viz., (i) that the finding of the Commission that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because the charges were not framed by the Enquiry Committee but by the Committee of Management was erroneous and (ii) that the Commission could not have gone into the merits of the case as it had done. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the latter ground and gave liberty to the Management to hold fresh inquiry in effect confirming the first ground on which the Commission had disapproved the finding of the Enquiry Committee and observing that when the inquiry was vitiated in its entirety the Commission ought not to have gone into the merits of the findings. Against this order of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred. While allowing the writ petition, however, the High Court directed the petitioners (appellants herein) to reinstate Respondent 3 as the Principal of the said college on the same salary as he was drawing and also permitted the appellants to take action, if any, against Respondent 3 in accordance with law.
3. This order of the High Court is also challenged by Respondent 3 by filing a separate special leave petition, viz., SLP No. 8834 of 1992.
4. With the help of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, we have gone through the entire record. We have also noticed Section 21 of the Act to which our attention was particularly drawn. We are of the view that the High Court has fallen in error in holding that the inquiry was vitiated because the charge-sheet was not framed by the Enquiry Committee but by the Committee of Management. The High Court has also committed an error in holding that the Commission could not have gone into the merits of the case. According to us, in view of the provisions of the said Section 21, the Commission while deciding whether or not to grant approval for the removal of a teacher, has necessarily to go into the merits of the case and apply its mind independently to the question whether the evidence on record justified the removal. It must be remembered that the Commission appointed under the Act is a high-powered body and as a body entrusted with the important function of supervising the actions taken by the Management against the teachers, it has to discharge its responsibility circumspectively. It cannot exercise its function effectively unless it scrutinises the material and applies its mind carefully to the facts on record. Hence if the Commission goes through the entire record and the merit of the action taken, its action cannot be faulted. On both accounts, therefore, the High Court's order is wrong.
5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether any ground is made out to interfere with the order of the Commission disapproving the termination of the services of Respondent 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter has been pending for a long time, the High Court is directed to dispose of the writ petition within four months from the receipt of this order. It is made clear that during this period Respondent 3 shall stand reinstated in service and to that extent the direction given by the High Court is not interfered with. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
SLP (C) No. 8834 of 1992
6. In view of the above order, Mr R.K Jain, Senior Advocate withdraws the petition which is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
7. IA No. 3 of 1993 in CA No. 2398 of 1992 is also dismissed as withdrawn.