IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12882 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 29.04.2009 Managing Committee, Indra High School, Kainaur, District Ropar .... PETITIONER Versus The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Managing Committee, Indra High School, Kainaur, District Ropar, has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6.9.2004 (Annexure P-13), passed by the Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, whereby the resolution dated 23.4.2002, passed by the petitioner for dismissal of the services of Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi (respondent No.3 herein) was not approved; the order dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure P-23), passed by the State School Tribunal, Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal' ), CWP No. 12882 of 2007 -2- dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order; as well as the order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure P-24), whereby the review petition has also been dismissed by the Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders. Undisputedly, respondent Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi, who was working as Head Master in Indra High School, Kainaur, Ropar, was dismissed from services on 23.4.2002 by the Managing committee on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Shri Satwant Singh Gill, Principal, Govt. School, Singh Bhagwantpur, District Ropar. Thereafter, the Managing Committee filed an application before the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education) Punjab, for approval of the proposal for dismissal of respondent Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi, because under the provisions of the Punjab Privately Managed recognized Schools Employees Services Act, 1979 and the rules made thereunder, the prior approval from the DPI is mandatory. The DPI (Secondary Education) Punjab dismissed the application filed by the Managing Committee for seeking approval of the dismissal of the services of respondent Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi, on the ground that the request for approval was made after dismissal of the services of respondent, which was not permissible and secondly that 8 persons, who signed as members of the Managing Committee, were not the members and even signature of one of the members was forged. It was also observed that no regular enquiry was held CWP No. 12882 of 2007 -3- for the alleged mis-conduct of the respondent. Against the above order, appeal was filed by the petitioner, and the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal, while observing as under :\ “Starting the arguments on behalf of the respondent, the Ld. counsel stated that DPI has rightly rejected the proposal of the school management since Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi was dismissed without obtaining the illegible approval of the Director as laid down under Section 17 and 18 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Services) Rules, 1981. In this case, the so-called Inquiry Report, which was conducted by the Inquiry Officer, Satwant Singh Gill, was in fact a fact-finding enquiry. No proper charge sheet was issued to Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi nor was he allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and in the absence of this procedure, the Enquiry Report cannot be considered valid. Besides, before dismissal, the prior approval of the Director is a must as per the law laid down and the Management applied for approval only after issuing the dismissal order of Mr. Sohi. As such, the DPI has rightly passed the order of rejecting the proposal of the Management. Accordingly, this order should be upheld. After listening to the arguments put across by both the Ld. counsels, it abundantly clear that due procedure has not been followed in conducting the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer Sh. Satwant Singh Gill, Principal Government Senior Secondary School (Hoshiarpur), Ropar, as directed by the Distt. Education Officer, Rupnagar, was to hold enquiry into the allegations against the headmaster. Based on this Inquiry Report, the Management should have issued the charge sheet to CWP No. 12882 of 2007 -4- the respondent and a regular Inquiry Officer should have been appointed by the Managing Committee to conduct an enquiry as laid down under the Act. But no such procedure was followed. Secondly as per Rule, 1981, Section 18 sub section (8) lays down that no order of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or within a time scale or termination shall be passed without the prior approval of the Director. In this case Sh. Sohi was dismissed first and then approval was sought from DPI. Besides, as brought out by the DPI, there is dispute regarding Managing Committee and the present Managing Committee was not competent to take action against the Headmaster. In view of above, the appeal by Management is rejected and it is directed that Sh. Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi will be treated on duty from the day his services were dispensed with.” The review petition, filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order, was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the factual position, as mentioned in the aforesaid impugned order i.e. (i) the enquiry conducted by Shri Satwant Singh Gill was in fact a fact-finding enquiry; (ii) neither any charge sheet was issued to Jaswinder Pal Singh Sohi nor he was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses; (iii) no regular enquiry was conducted against him; and (iv) before his dismissal, the prior approval from the Director was not obtained. In view of these uncontroverted facts, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the Director Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab as well as the Tribunal, because services of an employee of a privately CWP No. 12882 of 2007 -5- managed recognized School could not have been terminated without holding a regular enquiry and providing an opportunity of hearing to him. Further, before dismissing such an employee, prior approval of the DPI is mandatory under Section 18 (8) of the Rules of 1981. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. April 29, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE