- (1.) The petitioners in this writ petition are challenging the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S. II) Kanpur Nagar whereby the D.I.O.S. has declined to grant approval to the order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Principal of the Institution-petitioners terminating the services of the respondent no.3. The petitioner-institution no.1 is a Christian Minority Community Institution recognised as such under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The college is a recognised and aided institution upto the High School level and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. There is a registered society in the name and style of 'Carmel Sadan Society', petitioner no.3, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said college has a residence for sisters known as 'Fatima Convent', petitioner no.2. Sri Lakhan, the respondent no.3 was employed as a class-IV in the college and a residential quarter was also given to him in the Fatima Convent along with other care-takers for performing night guard duty at the entrance of the convent by weekly rotation in the Fatima Convent. Respondent no.3 was required to perform his duty from 10.00 to 6.00 p.m..
(2.) It is stated that on the night of 24.12.2003 the respondent no.3 was on night guard duty of the Fatima Convent. Being Christmas Eve all the nuns and sisters of the Convent had left the Convent around 11.45 p.m. for midnight prayer at the St. Frances Xavier Church, Kanpur Nagar. The nuns and sisters returned to the Convent on 25.12.2003 around 2.30 A.M. and were surprised to see that the channel lock and door of the first floor of the convent were broken and the rooms of Sister Meera and Sister Noreen (Principal) were ransacked and cash amounting Rs.1,12,000/- were stolen from the Almirah along with a Tape Recorder and Camera. The matter was reported to the S.H.O., Swaraoop Nagar, Kanpur on 25.12.2003 but he refused to lodge an F.I.R. and, therefore, the matter was taken up with the S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar and by the order of S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar dated 6.1.2004, F.I.R. No.3 of 2004, under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. was lodged against the respondent no.3 on 7.1.2004. Sri Lakhan, respondent no.3 was arrested and sent to jail on 10.1.2004. The police also filed a charge sheet against Lakhan on 28.1.2004. The matter is reported to be still under prosecution.
(3.) On account of arrest of the respondent no.3, he was placed under suspension by order dated 12.1.2004 by the petitioner no.1 and information in this regard was also forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.6.2004. A show cause notice was issued to him as to why his services may not be terminated for his involvement in a criminal act amounting to dereliction of duty and moral turpitude. Smt. Geeta Singh, Senior Teacher was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri A. Dubey, member of the management committee of the college was appointed as Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the respondent no.3 on 25.8.2004. Respondent no.3 participated in the domestic enquiry and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted her report on 10.10.2004 holding the respondent no.3 guilty of the charges levelled against him. The principal considered the enquiry report and thereafter passed an order dated 30.10.2004 dismissing the respondent no.3 from service. Respondent no.3 preferred a departmental appeal dated 30.11.2004 before the Committee of Management under section 16-G read with Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulation framed thereunder. The Committee of Management considered the gravity of the criminal charge against the petitioner and findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the grounds taken in appeal and has rejected the appeal of the respondent no.3 by its order dated 25.4.2005. The respondent no.3, thereafter, preferred a representation before District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners also participated in the hearing before the District Inspector of Schools, respondent no.1 and justified its action vide its letter dated 4.5.2005. The Principal, petitioner no.1 also appeared before the District Inspector of Schools and also raised a preliminary objection that the institute being a minority institution the District Inspector of Schools was not competent to hear the matter. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by its impugned order dated 21.2.2006 has revoked the order of dismissal of the respondent no.3 and directed that the order of dismissal shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.;