An order of suspension of the Head or a Teacher, as the case may be, would become inoperative after lapse of sixty days but would continue to exist though inoperative but would become effective immediately on approval of District Inspector of Schools. In the event of the District Inspector of Schools disapproving the suspension, the order would become non est and would not exist in the eye of law unless the order of disapproval is set aside by the competent court/authority. The District Inspector of Schools while exercising power under sub-section (7) of Section 16 G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act acts in a supervisory capacity. He has to record brief reason to accord approval or disapproval to any order of suspension passed by the Management. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers so transmitted but would have no right to address on the merit of the charges, but has only to see on, prima facie basis, as to whether, charges have any substance. The issue in that regard has to be examined in departmental enquiry to be held against the Principal/Teacher. Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter College v. State of U.P., 2018 (5) AWC 4767.
Tag Archives: departmental enquiries
In Salahuddin Ansari v. State of U.P., 2008 (3) ESC 1667, it was held that non holding of oral inquiry is a serious flaw which can vitiate the order of disciplinary proceeding including the order or punishment. It was held as under:
“Non-holding of oral inquiry in such a case, is a serious matter and goes to the root of the case. In Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541, while considering the question as to whether holding of an inquiry is necessary or not, held that if no oral inquiry is held, it amounts to denial of principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee.” Mohan Law Garg v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 UPLBEC 1184.
The law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delionquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal by the Trial Court, therefore, does not ipso facto, absolve the employee from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction. Om Prakash Singh v. State Bank of India, 2016 (150) FLR 939.