M. K. Mukherjee, C.J. - (1.) RADHEY Shyam Saxena, the appellant before us, was at all material times working as a teacher in Saraswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Bareilly ('College' for short). While so employed he was placed under suspension on September 6, 1982,, followed by an inquiry into charges levelled against him through a charge-sheet The Inquiry Committee recommended his dismissal from service with effect from the date of his suspension and the Committee of Management of the College ('Committee' for short) passed a resolution to that effect on February 12, 1983. The Committee further proposed that the papers be sent to the District Inspector of Schools ('Inspector' for short) for approval of the order of dismissal. The Inspector, however, approved termination of the services of the appellant, and not his dismissal, by his order dated April 8, 1983. The Committee then issued a formal letter terminating the services of the appellant with effect from September 6, 1982, the date of his suspension
(2.) THE appellant challenged the termination of his services by filing an appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education which was dismissed. He then moved a writ petition, being C.M.W.P. No. 13054 of 1984, which was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on January 8, 1985, solely on the ground that the termination of services with effect from a date prior to the approval was hit by section 16-G (3) (a) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). While allowing the writ petition the Court observed that the petitioner (the appellant) was unable to show any other defect in the proceedings including any defect in the order of the District Inspector of Schools or the Deputy Director of Education. THE Court also made the following observations in its judgment :- "It is, however, made clear that the petitioner's (the appellant's) services can be terminated afresh by the Committee of Management on the basis of the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools, which has been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Education in appeal, by passing a fresh resolution, and serving a, fresh order of termination." Thereafter an application was filed by the appellant for reviewing the above judgment and the said application was dismissed with the remark that the above-quoted observations should not be taken to mean that the termination order if made could be validated in view of the observations made in the judgment and that every termination order had to be judged on its own averments, In view of the judgment allowing the writ petition the Committee passed another resolution on February 6, 1985 terminating the service of the appellant with effect from April 9, 1983, that is to say, the day following the day the Inspector approved the: termination of the services of the appellant. In terms of the said resolution the Committee issued another letter terminating the services of the appellant.
(3.) THIS order of termination was again assailed by the appellant through another writ petition and by an order dated 28, 1991, a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition in part by quashing the order dated February 6, 1985, so far as it directed the termination of the appellant's service with effect from April 9, 1983 and held that the appellant would be deemed to be in continuous service upto 5-2-198S and entitled to all consequential benefits, besides three months' pay in lieu of three months' notice. The above order is under challenge in this Special Appeal. Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, first contended that though the learned Single Judge noticed in his judgment that the termination of the appellant's service by the impugned order dated 6-2-1985 was made under Regulation 26 of] the Regulations framed under the Act, the learned Judge failed to consider that such termination could not be made without offering the appellant three months' salary before effecting the termination. The learned counsel submitted that offer of three months' salary was a precondition for terminating the services of a teacher under Regulation 26 and as admittedly no such offer was made, the termination was bad in law.;