V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) Peter Albert/respondent No, 2 was appointed on a class IV post on 1.7.1997 in St. Charles Inter College, Sardhana, Meerut (in brief institution). His service record for the last 23 years was without any blemish. On 20.11,1999 the principal suspended him. He was issued charge-sheet on 15.12.1999. It was replied on 24.12.1999. All the four charges were denied. Sri B.D. Sharma a teacher was appointed enquiry officer. The enquiry proceedings were completed in absence of respondent No. 2. The report was submitted on 18.1.2000. The principal issued a show cause notice on 20.1.2000. It was replied on 1.2.2000. By order dated 4.2.2000 the principal dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from the date of suspension. He filed an appeal, challenging the order dated 4.2.2000, before the committee of management. It was dismissed. He filed a representation on 5.2.2000 under Chapter III, Regulation 31 of the Regulations framed under U.P. intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in brief Regulations) before the District Inspector of Schools (in brief DIOS). The management filed its objection that the DIOS had no jurisdiction to hear the representation of respondent No. 2. The DIOS allowed the representation, of respondent No. 2 by his order dated 28.9.2000, and directed his reinstatement with a warning and stoppage of one increment permanently. It is this order of DIOS dated 28.9.2000 which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.
(2.) Sri Vivek Chaudhary learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that DIOS has neither jurisdiction to entertain representation of respondent No. 2 nor his prior approval was required before dismissing him as the institution was a minority institution. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Yunus Ali Sha v. Mohd. Abdul Kalam and Ors., 1999 (2) ESC 1572 (SC) : (1999) 3 SCC 676 : JT 1999 (3) SC 32 and the decision of Division Bench in Committee of Management A. B. Vidhyalaya Inter College, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Shukla, 1999 (3) ESC 2139 (AH) (DB).
(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri Pramod Kumar Jain has urged that even though the institution is a minority institution but the State could impose regulatory measures in functioning of the institution. He argued that the provisions of Section 16-G (1) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in brief Act) read with Regulations 31 to 38, 100 to 107 of the Regulations which lay down detailed procedure and guideline for appointment and punishment of class four employees, would apply as there is no bar under the Act or Regulations that these provisions will not apply to institutions administered by minorities. Therefore the DIOS had jurisdiction to decide the representation of respondent No. 2. He further urged that the charges framed against the respondent No. 2 were vague and evidence was manufactured by petitioners. The enquiry proceedings were completed with undue haste, and without any proper opportunity to respondent No. 2. The DIOS found that there was a conspiracy to dismiss the respondent No. 2. He modified the punishment of dismissal to warning and stoppage of one increment permanently. He urged that the order of DIOS is not liable to be interfered with. The learned Standing Counsel has supported the order passed by DIOS and has adopted the argument of learned Counsel for respondent No 2.;