IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 508 (SS) of 2011 Suresh Chandra ……..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the Committee of Management. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in a grant-in-aid, intermediate college, which is known as Kisan Inter College, Pirumadara, Tehsil-Ramnagar, District-Nainital. Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 09.05.2011. The charges in the order, on which the petitioner was suspended, are absolutely vague such as the petitioner not taking interest in studies, low results in exam, not obeying orders of superior authority etc., tampering with the records, using un-parliamentary language as well as “searching” for the rights. The suspension order states that as disciplinary inquiry is contemplated against him and, therefore, he is suspended. Consequently, thereafter, a charge sheet was given to the petitioner on 20.05.2011. The petitioner challenged this suspension order before this Court. 3. In their reply, the respondents have defended the suspension order of the petitioner and have stated that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is on and the suspension order may not be interfered with, as it would affect the disciplinary proceedings presently 2 continuing against the petitioner. There are other defences taken by the respondents as well. The State has also defended the stand of the Management Committee. Their counter affidavit is also on record. 4. The service conditions of the petitioner, in a grant- in-aid school, is presently governed by an Act, known as Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 (from herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 39 of the said Act, presently governs the condition of service, inter alia, the teachers of such Institutions. Clauses 5, 6, 7 & 8 of Section 39 of the Act are relevant for the purpose and are quoted below:- Clause 5:- No Head of Institution or teacher shall be suspended by the management, unless in the opinion of the Management- (a) the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or (b) his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or (c) any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Clause 6:- Where any Head of Institution or teacher is suspended by the Committee of Management, it shall be reported to the District Education Officer within seven days from the date of the order of suspension and the report shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed and accompanied by all relevant documents. Clause 7:- No such order of suspension shall, unless approved by the District Education Officer, shall remain in force for more than sixty days from the date of such order, and the order of the District Education Officer shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. Clause 8:-… 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Clause 5 of Section 39 of the Act, as 3 according to him a teacher can only be suspended by the Management Committee, inter alia, for the charges against him and the charges against him are serious enough to merit his dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; or his continuance in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against him; or any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude against him is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 6. Since the third condition admittedly does not exist, we shall briefly discuss as to whether the first two conditions really exist in order to entail suspension against the present petitioner. Although, as it has already been stated above, the charges against the petitioner are vague, however, subsequently the charge-sheet has also been filed and has been given to the petitioner where some of the charges have been elaborated. 7. In the view of this Court, though these charges may constitute an act of indiscipline but there is nothing on record to show that even if such charges are proved, this would invite the major penalties such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Even without expressing any opinion as to the gravity of these charges, definitely there is nothing on record to show that the Management had applied its mind on this aspect, inasmuch as, there is also nothing on record to show that the Management had expressed such an opinion while passing the suspension order. There is also nothing on record to show that the continuance of the petitioner in office is likely to hamper or prejudice the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 4 8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that suspension order could only have been passed by the Committee of Management and impugned order has been passed by the Manager, does not appear to be true, inasmuch as, the State Government in its counter affidavit filed an annexure which shows that prior to suspension order dated 09.05.2011 there is a resolution of Committee of Management dated 03.04.2011, which has resolved to suspend the services of the petitioner. In other words, the impugned order dated 09.05.2011, as a consequence of resolution of Committee of Management to suspend the service of the petitioner. 9. However, there is another aspect to the matter. Ordinarily such disciplinary proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time. Though no such time has been specified under Clause 8 (which has already been referred above) of Section 39 of the Act, powers have been given to the District Education Officer, that if he is satisfied that disciplinary proceedings against a teacher are being delayed, for no fault of the teacher, he may, after affording opportunity to the Management may revoke the order of suspension. Although there is nothing on record to show that any representation has been made by the petitioner in this regard to the District Education Officer, considering overall facts and circumstances of the matter, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has remained suspended since 9th May, 2011, which seems to be an inordinate delay, this Court is of the view that since there has been a clear violation of Clause 5 of Section 39 of the Act and there has been nothing on record to show that either the Committee of Management 5 has passed this order by way of resolution or the charges against the petitioner are so grave that if proved, it shall entail maximum punishment and his continuance in service shall hamper the disciplinary proceedings. In absence of that, the impugned order dated 9th May, 2011 cannot stand and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 10. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated:08.11.2011 ML