- (1.)BY this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order of dismissal dated 30. 4. 1996 (Annexure-A/14) and the order rejecting the appeal and to reinstate him to his post as Head Master of the Ching-Tam High School, Salungpham, Thoubal District with all consequential benefits. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed Head Master of the Ching-Tam Junior High School (now upgraded as the Ching-Tam High School) at the time of its establishment. On the recommendation of the Departmental promotion committee held on 25. 11. 1980, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Graduate Teacher at the same school was approved by the order dated 25. 11. 1980. The petitioner submitted a complaint on 9. 10. 1995 to the respondent No. 4 stating that 9 Assistant Teachers, 1 L. D. C. and 1 Ex-Committee member of his school had illegally collected a sum of Rs. 55,498/- for admission and other fees for the academic sessions 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 which have not been deposited to the school despite his repeated requests. The petitioner accordingly requested the respondent No. 4 to take necessary action against the aforesaid persons. No action was taken against them. Instead, the petitioner received the show cause notice dated 18. 11. 1995 issued by the respondent No. 6 requiring him to reply to the same on or before 25. 11. 1995 in respect of the following three letters, namely : (1) The Letter No. Ex/146/85/4961-63 of the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, (2) The letter No. 46-88-90-ED (G) Pt. of the Director of Education (s) and (3) Letter No. 10/19/91-ED (TH) of the Inspector of Schools, Zone-III, Thoubal. The petitioner in response to the show cause notice stated that he had not received the aforesaid three letters and that he had no idea about them. The petitioner also requested the respondent No. 6 to furnish him those letters or to explain them so as to enable him to submit show cause statement. The respondent No. 6 neither furnished those letters to the petitioner nor had he explained about them. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 29. 11. 1995 of the respondent No. 5 on the basis of those letters. However, a corrigendum was issued by the respondent No. 5 on 30. 11. 1995 clarifying that the suspension of the petitioner's service was in exercise of Rule No. (2) of the Government Aided Private School Teachers (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1975, for short ). Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 issued the memorandum dated 17. 2. 1996 in respect of articles of charges against the petitioner requiring him to submit his written statement in one week. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 23. 2. 96 to respondent No. 6 with a prayer to allow him to appear in person. In his written statement, he denied all the charges levelled against him and also approached the respondents to drop the proposed disciplinary proceeding against him. However, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold the inquiry. In the course of inquiry, 5 PWs were examined. Thereafter, by the notice dated 15. 4. 96, the petitioner was asked to submit his representation against the proposed major penalties. On 20. 4. 96, the petitioner submitted the said representation strongly disputing the findings of the enquiry authorities. Ultimately, by the order dated 30. 4. 96, the respondents dismissed the petitioner from service by treating his period of suspension to be in service and by allowing the School Managing Committee to recover the amount he misappropriated from his salary for the period of suspension. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1975 to quash the order of dismissal and to reinstate to his post. The appeal was dismissed on 15. 7. 96 without any reason.
(2.)BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition to this Court for a direction to consider and dispose of his appeal dated 15. 7. 96. By the order dated 18. 3. 97, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent No. 7 to dispose of the said appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
(3.)ACCORDING to the petitioner, the appeal was disposed of in the month of July, 1997 but the copy of the order or disposal whereof was not given to him despite repeated requests made by him. It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance with the order of Enquiring Authorities, he went to the office of the respondent No. 4 on 8. 4. 96 at 11 a. m. for personal hearing alongwith four witnesses but none of the Enquiring Authorities was there and as a result, he was compelled to go back after waiting for them upto 2 p. m. In the result, according to the petitioner, he has been denied of opportunity of being heard and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court. The petitioner also contended that the order of dismissal dated 30. 4. 96 was issued in an arbitrary, malafide and bias manner in order to oust him from his service and to appoint a member of the locality of the school. The petitioner also challenged the findings of the Enquiring Authorities on the ground of arbitrariness, bias and malafide and illegality. The petitioner also submits that the authorities did not apply their minds before issuing the order of dismissal. He also submits that the composition of the Enquiring Authorities is also illegal in that the Enquiring Authority should consist of only one officer. Hence, this writ petition.