Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.7.80 dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 23.11.1980 passed by Committee of Management dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 25.11.1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's working as a peon.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a peon in me college. It has been stated that due to some malafide intention Sri Suresh Chandra who was the Manager of the college was annoyed with the petitioner and he has threatened the petitioner that he would get the petitioner dismissed from the service. A charge sheet dated 20.6.1980 was served on the petitioner. A copy of the charge sheet has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a reply on 7.7.1980 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On 9.7.80 the Inquiry Officer sent a letter to the petitioner to appear on 13.7.80. The petitioner sent a representation to the Principal of the College for appointment of another Inquiry Officer in place oft Sri O.P. Saxena. Then again on 14.7.80 the Inquiry Officer sent a letter intimating the petitioner to appear before him on 17.7.80. On receipt of the aforesaid letter. the petitioner informed the Principal of the College with a copy to the Inquiry Officer that the Inquiry Officer is biased and as such the Inquiry Officer be changed. The Principal of the College by letter -dated 21.7.80 has informed that the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Copy of the: dismissal order dated 21.7.80 has been filed as Annexeure -3 to the writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management had not decided the appeal then the petitioner filed an appeal before the district Inspector of Schools against the order of dismissal and the appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected by the order dated 25.11.1980. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court and has submitted that no opportunity of any kind has been given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations contained in the charge sheet and the appellate authority has also not considered that the charges are not such that can lead to the dismissal of the services of the petitioner. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. It has been stated that the charge against the petitioner was of theft of the college property and the petitioner was a Class -IV employee and after following the procedure as provided in the Act, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. The charge against the petitioner was that he stole away two chairs of the college for which a memo was given by the Principal to the petitioner and Sri Lalu Ram, Carpenter vide its report dated 7.9.78 has informed the Principal that two college chairs were lying in front of the teastall which were repaired by the aforesaid carpenter and the petitioner himself has confessed and made apology, therefore, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not correct.
(3.) ON the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that as provided under Regulation 31 of Chapter III of Rg. framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, services of Class -IV employees cannot be dispensed with except with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as in the present case no prior approval of the District Inspector of schools has been taken, therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Dava Shanker Tiwari v. Principal and Ors.,, 2001 (1) UPLBEC 707, Principal Rashtriya Inter College, Maharajgani v. District Inspector of Schools and Sita Ram v. District Inspector of Schools and has submitted that assuming for the purpose of argument that no such prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary I and only an appeal which can be filed before the District Inspector of Schools against an order of dismissal. Even the entire proceedings is vitiated on the ground of violation of Rg. 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of the Rg. framed under the Intermediate Education Act read with Regulation 10 thereof specify the procedure for disciplinary action. It has been submitted that no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted. The petitioner objected against the appointment of Sri. O.P. Saxena on the ground of bias as Sri O.P. Saxena has already filed first information report against the petitioner and the matter was under investigation. It has been submitted that ho inquiry report was ever submitted to the petitioner and has relied upon a judgment of , 1995 (1) L.B.E.S.R. 917, Committee of Management Shahgani Inter College, Jaunpur v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. It has also been submitted that the order of dismissal is a non -speaking order as such the same is liable to be quashed.;