BHAMVAR Singh, J. - (1.) This writ peti tion has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a teacher who was dismissed from service on the ground of his having contested a Parliamentary elec tion without requisite permission.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that Krishna Dutt Pandey was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary Palhshala, Agauna, Tiloi, District Rae Bareli. He did not report for during the last week of April, 1991. Enquiry in this context revealed that he had filed his nomination to contest the election for Parliamentary membership as an independent candidate. THE Deputy Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareli- sent a letter to the Returning Of ficer soliciting verification about the petitioner > eing a candidate in the Par liamentary election from Constituency No. 25. The Returning Officer vide his reply confirmed on 13-5-1991 that Krish na Dutt Pandey was contesting Parliamen tary election as an independent candidate. On the receipt of this information, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari dismissed the petitioner from service on that ground alone vide letter dated 17-5-1991. The petitioner filed an appeal and challenged the allegation that he was contesting Par liamentary election. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the Regional Assistant Educational Director (Basic) by virtue of order dated 26-7-1996. The petitioner was then compelled to file a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 26 (S/s) of 1997 and on having heard both the parties, this Court vide its order dated 7-4-1997 issued a mandamus directing the appellate authority to hear the appeal again and record a finding by speaking order as to whether the petitioner was a candidate from Amethi Parliamentary Constituency or not. In compliance of the said order the appellate authority, namely the Regional Assistant Educational Director (Basic) U. P. took the appeal again the arrived at a finding vide judgment dated 25-8-1998 (Annexure 2) that Krishna Dutt Pandey had contested the Parliamentary election against the rules and, therefore, he was rightly dis missed vide impugned order of May, 17, 1991. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition challenging again the validity of the order Annexure 2 and dismissal order Annexure 6 on the grounds that he was not given proper opportunity of being heard and neither any enquiry was con ducted by the Regional Assistant Educa tional Director in accordance with the rules nor the petitioner was informed about the date, time and place of the en quiry or the mode thereof. The documents relied upon by the aforesaid authority were also not supplied to him so as to enable him to prepare his defence case. It has also been alleged that the petitioner was meted out by the opposite party No. 1 with a shabby behaviour so much so that he was turned out of his office on 13-8-1998 by making an observa tion that he was a tout. On 20-8-1998 she arrived at village Agauna and conversed with the petitioner's arch rivals but she could not record statement of any vil lager. Then she concluded the enquiry on surmises and conjectures and passed the impugned order Anncxure 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to file this petition praying for quashing of the impugned orders Annxures 2 and 6. He has also prayed for an appropriate relief regarding his reinstatement and pay ment of his salary as also the adequate compensation. The opposite party District Shik-sha Adhikari Sri Brij Bhushan Maurya filed his counter-affidavit stating the petitioner's allegations to be as absolutely wrong, incorrect and misconceived. As a matter of fact the Regional Assistant Educational Director (Basic) VI Region, Lucknow passed the impugned order An nexure 2 with detailed reasons therein and confirmed the petitioner's dismissal order. The petitioner was duly informed about the proceedings by means of a notice and he was also asked to submit his reply but he did not. There was sufficient proof before the authority to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had contested the Par liamentary election. In support of the said averments, Sri Maurya filed copies of the list Anncxure C-l containing the names of all the candidates who were in the election fray, receipt regarding deposit of security Annexure C-2, the Superintendent of police's letter Annexure C-3 and letter dated 29-5-1989 Annexure C-4 issued by the Director Education regarding instruc tions for the teachers who proposed to contest the elections.
(3.) 1 have gone through the record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The crucial question to be deter mined by this Court is as to whether the petitioner's dismissal was or was not in accordance with the rules. Before I proceed to discuss the merits of the respective contentions of the parties on the issue as formulated above, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner Krishna Dutt Pandey appeared in person before this Court and argued his case. On the other hand Sri S. B. Pandey. Learned Counsel representing the opposite party No. 2 made his submissions on his behalf. It is further significant to note that Sri S. B. Pandey representing the District Basic Shik-sha Adhikari fairly conceded that the Clas sification Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 (to be hereinafter referred as CCA Rules) apply in the case of teachers including the petitioner. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides the procedure for imposing major penalties which reads as follows:- "14 (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided on this rule and Rule 15, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act. " Further clause (3) of the said Rule authorises the disciplinary authority to draw the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and such a charge shall contain a statement of all relevant facts, a list of documents and a list of witnesses proposed to be examined in support of the charge. A copy of the charge has to be delivered to the delinquent offi cial under clause (4) of the said Rule and the latter is required to submit his written statement in defence. If the charged offi cial does not admit the charge, the inquir ing authority shall proceed further and inform the charged employee about the date, time and place of the evidence to be recorded. Copies of the documents to be relied upon have also to be delivered to the delinquent official. Then the evidence in support of the charge may be recorded in presence of the delinquent official who shall have a right to cross-examine the witnesses and later lead his own evidence. After the evidence is closed, both the presenting officer supporting the charge and the charged official will have oppor tunity to make their respective submis sions either orally or by way of written briefs. After the conclusion of the enquiry the inquiring authority shall prepare a report containing the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations, the defence of the Government servant, an assessment of the evidence and the find ings with reasons therefor. In the end, the inquiring authority shall submit its report to the disciplinary authority. If the dis ciplinary authority itself conducts the en quiry, even then the aforesaid procedure has to be followed.;