- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The High Court of Allahabad having dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant questioning the order of termination of his services by the Committee of Management of Mahamana Malviya Degree College, meerut (hereinafter referred to as "the Managing Committee") and the application for review, these two appeals have been filed. Factual background sans unnecessary details is as follows: the appellant was appointed as the Principal of the College in question in July 1974. In the year 1977, university examinations for graduate classes were held in the College. The University received report regarding certain irregularities in the examination centre. The Vice-Chancellor appointed a committee to enquire into the alleged irregularities. The Inquiry Committee enquired into the matter and found that the conduct of the examination at the centre where the appellant was acting as Senior Superintendent of the examination Centre was not in order. The Inquiry Committee found several gross irregularities committed by the appellant in the conduct of the examination. It was noted that the appellant's son Rahul was also appearing in the examination. In the evening shift of the examination on 29-4-1977, his son appeared at the examination in Basic Statistics General Course. After considering the statements given by several persons, the Committee held that the appellant helped his son and had replaced the answer book of his son, signatures of the invigilator on the alleged answer book were not of the invigilator Shri S. K. Sharma. The Inquiry Committee recommended action. In its meeting held on 19-9-1977, the Managing Committee considered the report of the Inquiry Committee and by a resolution of even date resolved to suspend the appellant and further resolved to hold an inquiry in the matter.
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the appellant was issued a charge- sheet on 27-9-1977. It was specifically mentioned that the meeting of the inquiry Committee was to be held on 16-10-1977 and the appellant should be present. Though the appellant received the charge-sheet, he did not submit his reply and on the contrary, asked for 15 days' time by his letter dated 13-10-1977. Considering his request, the meeting of the Inquiry Committee was adjourned to 25-10-1977. Though the appellant was informed by registered post, he did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The Inquiry committee considered the materials on record and found the appellant guilty of irregularities and illegalities in the conduct of examination. It was found that he had changed the answer book of his son with an ulterior motive. The inquiry Committee recommended dismissal of the appellant from service subject to approval of the Vice-Chancellor. Notice was given by the Vice- chancellor to the appellant and the Managing Committee to consider the matter on 21-12-1977. It was subsequently adjourned to 23-12-1977 when the Vice-Chancellor heard the appellant and the Managing Committee. After that the Vice-Chancellor by his letter dated 24-12-1977 directed the managing Committee that another opportunity be given to the appellant to appear before the Inquiry Committee and all relevant papers were to be given to the appellant. The matter was fixed by the Inquiry Committee on 20-1- 1978 and the appellant was informed by registered post. But he did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The matter was again considered by the Inquiry Committee, which confirmed its report dated 25-10-1977 and the managing Committee by its letter dated 23-1-1978 informed the University that the appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. The Vice- chancellor was requested to accord approval to the proposal for dismissal of the appellant. All the documents which were demanded by the appellant had been given on 14-2-1978. The Committee of Management again received a letter from the University, stating that since all the documents demanded by the appellant were handed over to him on 24-2-1978, the appellant had been directed to appear on 24-2-1978. The Managing Committee was requested to submit its case after 24-2-1978 for consideration of the Vice-Chancellor. In spite of the said letter of the University, the appellant again did not appear before the Inquiry Committee. Necessary information in this regard was given to the Vice-Chancellor. The University again asked the Managing committee and the respondent to appear before the Vice-Chancellor on 24-4- 1978 and again on 5-6-1978. The matter was heard by the Vice-Chancellor who was of the view that the punishment proposed by the Managing committee was harsh and the Managing Committee was required to reconsider the same. The Managing Committee again considered the matter and resolved that the appellant's service should be terminated instead of dismissal. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor by an order dated 1-7-1978 granted approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee. The appellant challenged the said order by preferring a reference under Section 66 of the of M. M. DEGREE COLLEGE (Pasayat, J. ) u. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short "the University Act") before the chancellor. The reference was rejected by the order dated 3-8-1979. The chancellor found that the appellant had been given adequate opportunities to place his case before the Inquiry Committee, but he failed to do so. The appellant challenged the order of the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor before the High Court. According to him opportunity was not granted before the orders were passed. This stand was rebutted by the Managing Committee with reference to the record which indicated that more-than-adequate opportunity was granted. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 16-5-1996 dismissed the writ petition.;