Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. Ajit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 have stated that at this stage, they do not propose to file any counter affidavit to this writ petition. Accordingly this matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parries.
(2.) THE Committee of Management of the institution has come up against the order dated 3.3.2013 whereby the proposal for dispensing the services of respondent No. 4 as the Head of the institution has been disapproved and the Committee has been obliged to reinstate the respondent No. 4 in service. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the institution is an Inter College and unaided, and the appointment of respondent No. 4 is under the provisions Section 7 -AA of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Accordingly the service conditions of such employees are governed by the Government Order dated 10.8.2001. The aforesaid facts are undisputed.
(3.) THE charges leveled by the petitioner -committee were several but the main charge against respondent No. 4 was setting up a rival Committee of the Management through his wife -Urmila Devi. The contention of the petitioner -committee is that after the representations and the submissions were made, the impugned order has been passed on the ground that Clause -IX of the Government Order dated 10.8.2001 has been violated, and, since there is a procedural violation in dispensing with the services of the respondent No. 4, the proposal is invalid. There is also a finding on the fact that the petitioner -committee did not provide necessary documents relating to the enquiry that is alleged to have been held against the respondent No. 4.;