S.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.2.1990. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as required under law was not obtained and further the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner before passing the order. He further submits that suspension order of the petitioner was stayed by this Court and out of vengeance the opposite parties proceeded to terminate the petitioner from service.
(2.) COUNSEL for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that most of the charges have been admitted by the petitioner, so the enquiry as contemplated under law was not required in respect of those charges. He further submits that the enquiry committee of three members was appointed and they gave opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee and answer the charges and participate in the enquiry by means of registered letter dated 30.1.1990 apart from the other letters, which were sent to the petitioner unregistered. Therefore, no illegibility can be attributed to the order of termination. The charges levelled against the petitioner are serous in nature and if the petitioner is allowed to continue, then the atmosphere of the institution will be spoiled. Apart from it, the students have also complained against the petitioner in regard to his indecent behaviour. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find that so far the first point of giving of opportunity to the petitioner is concerned, it is evident from reading of the enquiry report that most of the letters written by the petitioner have been annexed to prove in which the petitioner has admitted his guilt in respect of those charges. In spite of that the committee informed the petitioner to participate in the enquiry fixing 30.1.1990. Apart from it, a letter was sent by the enquiry committee to the petitioner on 16.12.1989, which was received by the petitioner on 19.12.1989. The petitioner replied to the said letter on 30.12.1989. In reply to the letter to the petitioner dated 30.12.1989, the enquiry committee sent a letter to the petitioner Under Certificate of Posting on 1.1.1990 calling upon the petitioner to appear in the College on 7.1.1990 to tender his evidence, but he did not participate in the enquiry. The oral enquiry was made by the committee in the College and the petitioner was called for cross-examining the witnesses, but he did not present himself on the said date. Thereafter, the petitioner was given various opportunities, but he did not appear and cooperate in the enquiry. Apart from it, on 30.1.1990 a registered letter was sent to the petitioner informing him that he should appear before the enquiry committee at 11 a.m. on 21.2.1990, but the petitioner did not present himself. The above facts go to indicate that the petitioner was given proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry, but he avoided to participate in the enquiry, as such in view of the law propounded by the apex Court in the case of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited vs. Rakesh Kumar, 2005 (13) SCC 578 and looking to the conduct of the petitioner no fault can be attributed to the enquiry as the petitioner himself as decided to keep away with the enquiry with a view to set up a claim at a later point of time. Such conduct of the petitioner cannot give any right to him and neither the petitioner can claim that there was violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.) SO far the second point of the petitioner that there was no prior approval from the B.S.A. is concerned, counsel for the opposite parties has pointed out from the record that the committee of management sent papers for approval of the petitioner's termination on 24.2.1990 and the approval of the said termination order was given by the B.S.A. on 7.6.1990. Therefore, the question of prior approval as argued by the counsel for the petitioner is of no avail as the termination order will only take its effect after the approval is granted. Since it is evident from the record that the approval has been granted, therefore, it has to be presumed that there is no illegality in the action of the committee of management.;