- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Petitioner Syed Haider Ali Naqvi has challenged orders dated 3-7-1989 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad, terminating his services and order dated 2-2-1991 passed by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parisad dismissing his appeal.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are stated as under: Petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher (Urdu) in a primary school in 1972. He was transferred to Newada from where he was sent and completed B. T. C. training in August, 1979. He was transferred to Primary School Phoolpur in 1982 and was thereafter transferred back to Primary School Newada, Block Bahariya, District Allahabad. A writ petition was filed by him against the transfer order in which the order was stayed on 19-8-1982. He was again transferred on 11-10-1988 to Junior High School Tharwai, Block Soraon, District Allahabad and thereafter to Primary School Lotar, Block Meja, District Allahabad by order of the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad dated 7-3-1989. Aggrieved by common transfer order, some teachers filed writ petitioners. Petitioner also filed a writ petition in which by an order dated 19-5-1989, the operation of order dated 7-3-1989 was stayed. THE petitioner was, however, relieved on 8-3-1989 and was thus treated to be on the strength of Primary School Lotar, Block Meja, Allahabad. It appears that petitioner thereafter remained absent for a long period. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Allahabad submitted a report to the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad on 15-4-1989 stating that petitioner is not taking interest in teaching and remains absent without information. A charge-sheet dated 2-5-1989 was sent to petitioner which was not received by him. It was published in daily newspaper 'amrit Prabhat' on 19-3-1989. Since there were some errors in the charge-sheet, a notice was again published in the same newspaper on 18-5-1989 and that on 27-5-1989 when petitioner was present in the office of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, an attempt was made to serve the charge-sheet upon him, which he refused. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet and thus a inquiry report was submitted on 12-6-1989 in which charges were found to be established and by order dated 3-7-1989, his services were terminated. The termination order was also published in 'amrit Prabhat' on 30-7-1989. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal. A report was sent by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad on 18-12-1990 on which 20-12-1990 was fixed for producing evidence. The Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad heard both petitioner and the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and by a detailed order dated 2-2-1991, after examining each and every charge, the appeal was dismissed. I have heard Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The contentions of Sri Naqvi are as follows : (1) Petitioners was not afforded reasonable opportunity either at the stage of enquiry or the stage of consideration of enquiry report before the District Basic Education Officer. (2) The enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner. At the appellate stage, petitioner requested for the supply of relevant documents relied upon by the respondents but those documents were not supplied, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine the same; and (3) The orders were passed on the mala fides of the officers who were prejudiced against petitioner on account of complaints made by him regarding grave financial irregularities in the audit reports and the G. P. F. accounts.
(3.) ELABORATING his submissions, Sri Naqvi submitted that in pursuance of the interim order dated 19-8- 1982 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9371 of 1982 (Syed Haider Ali Naqvi v. D. I. O. S. and others), petitioner continued to work in Junior High School Phoolpur, Allahabad. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari Allahabad terminated petitioner's services on 13-4-1983. Petitioner challenged this order before Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. By an order dated 23-5-1983, the Parishad quashed the termination order holding that it was totally illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and the rules framed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was an office bearer of Shikshak Sangh and organised several agitations against officials of the department upon which respondents were displeased with the petitioner. He was a signatory to various agreements entered into between Shikshak Sangh and the Board as an office bearer of Shikshak Sangh. A demand was made for introduction of compulsory deposit scheme and G. P. F. Account of teachers on which no action was taken. The Shikshak Sangh started agitations from December, 1988 to August, 1989. A number of irregularities were pointed out by the petitioner based upon the audit report before the Additional Director of Education. The respondents then decided to victimise petitioner. In order to harass him petitioner was reverted back to Primary School from his posting at Junior High School vide order dated 7-3-1989 which was stayed by this Court on 19-5-1989 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5180 of 1989. Twelve other Urdu teachers, who took part in the agitation, were also sent back to Primary Schools. They also filed writ petitions in which their orders of transfer were also stayed. Petitioner's salary was topped and he was not allowed to assume his duties at the place from where he was transferred. In the meantime, he was removed from service without giving him any opportunity or notice on account of mala fide intentions. Petitioner has denied the allegation made against him for not accepting the notice as published in daily newspaper 'amrit Prabhat. ' The publication included the charges but that the petitioner was not supplied with the documents in support of the said charges. He demanded copies of documents which were not given to him. The second notice published on 3-6-1989 in 'amrit Prabhat' referred to the petitioner's application but still the documents were not supplied to him. The petitioner met the enquiry officer who failed to supply him the documents on the ground that the keys of Almirah were not available and assured that the petitioner shall be sent the copies of the documents and that all of sudden on 3-7-1989 orders were passed terminating his service. Petitioner has denied the charges as false, baseless and concocted. In appeal, petitioner again requested for supply of the documents in support of the charges which were not given to him, and thus he could not give a detailed and effective reply for want of relevant documents. On merits, the petitioner has submitted that he did not absent himself without sufficient cause. He attended school regularly and an application was given to the higher authority with the prayer that he be paid full salary, bonus etc. for the period reported to be the period of his absence. The service book was kept in the office on which cuttings and over-writing could not be attributed to him.;