- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in Shri Krishna Adarsh College, Baragaon, District Jhansi in 1974. It is averred that the petitioner incurred displeasure of the then principal Sri Radha Charan Badal and was served with a charge-sheet dated 30-4-88 by which he was suspended with immediate effect. THE charge-sheet has been appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In brief the charges against the petitioner were that he had proceeded on learned leave from 6-11- 1987 to 6-12-1987, as such his salary bill could not be prepared for the period he was on leave. On his return the petitioner abused the Principal and threatened to take revenge, as such a FIR was lodged by the Principal before the SHO of P. S. Baragaon. After the FIR was lodged the petitioner ran away in hiding. He did not return and remained absent till 21-12-1987. A further charge against the petitioner is that though he remained absent till 21-12-87 and gave an application on 22-12-87 stating therein that he was suffering from fever and was not in a position to attend the college, he remained absent till 22-3- 88. The petitioner in the absence of Principal signed the attendance register on 23-3-88 inspite of the fact that the Head Clerk asked him not to do so. Thereafter, Sri Shyam Lal Kushwaha, a teacher of the college, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On the report of Inquiry Officer dated 5-1-89, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Principal vide order dated 1-2-1989. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner filed an appeal on 20-2-1989 under Regulation 31 Chapter III of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the Committee of Management which was also dismissed by an order dated 24-7-89. The petitioner made a representation on 19/21-8-89 before the DIOS but the same was not decided for several months. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of termination dated 1-2-89. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16-12- 1989 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi to decide the representation expeditiously. The District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi vide order dated 6-2-1990 also upheld the order of termination dated 1-2-1989 and resolution No. 5 of the Committee of Management dated 23-7-89 terminating the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner moved this Court for quashing the orders dated 6-2-1990, 24-7-1989 and 2-1-1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi, Committee of Management and the Principal of the college respectively. He further prayed for direction to the respondents to pay the entire arrears of salary and future salary as and when it accrues to the petitioner.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is not in service since February, 1989. The Committee of Management as well as the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi have approved the termination of the petitioner finding him guilty his conduct being not conducive the discipline of the institution. The behaviour and action of an employee of an educational institution should be an example for the students. From the records it appears that some students present there had somehow intercepted the petitioner and prevented him from beating the principal in presence of teachers, staff and other students. The decision in this case would rest upon the findings of fact as to whether the services of the petitioner have been terminated due to displeasure of the then Principal failing to take work from him at his residence alleged by the petitioner or the petitioner had, in fact, committed serious misconduct for which his services have been terminated. The question of quantum of punishment is also utmost importance in the facts and the circumstances of the case. All these questions require taking of evidence and going into the findings of fact, which cannot be done by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031, has laid down certain principles for deciding the cases under Industrial Jurisprudence, in cases even where the enquiry had or had not been held.;