D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By an order dated 28th March. 2000, the petitioner's appeal was returned on the ground that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Relying on Statute 23.04 of the Meerut University Statute, he contends that against the order passed under clause (2) of Statute 23, an appeal lies to the Regional Deputy Director of Education after the order passed under Statute 23.02 is approved under Statute 23.03 of the Meerut University Statute.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Upadhyaya and the learned standing counsel at length.
(3.) The Meerut University Statute in Chapter XXII while prescribing conditions of service of non-teaching staff of the affiliated colleges in Statute 23.02 prescribes that the appointing authority referred to in Statute 23.01 shall have the power to take disciplinary action and award punishment against the class of employee of which he is the appointing authority. By reason of Statute 23.03, every decision of the appointing authority with regard to the disciplinary proceeding as contemplated in Statute 23.02 shall be reported to the District Inspector of Schools before it is communicated to the employee. Such decision shall take effect only when it is approved by the District Inspector of Schools in writing, with certain exceptions provided in the two provisos appended thereto, with which we are not concerned now. Against the order of approval by the District Inspector of Schools in terms of Statute 23.03, the appeal is provided (n Statute 23.04 prescribing that such appeal shall He to the Regional Deputy Director of Education.;