- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed by the peti tioner challenging the order of termination of his services by the Manage ment Committee, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 10th September, 1991 (Annexure- 7 to the writ petition ).
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a Daftari, a Class IV employee, in the Bhagwan Parashu Ram Dham Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sehnag, Selempur, district Deoria on 1-7-1976. THE petitioner was further promoted to Class III employee with effect from 25-10-1983 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). THE peti tioner had fallen ill and was sanctioned Medical Leave from 5-9-1991 to 7-9-1991 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). He could not recover and applied for extension of Medical Leave and reported on duty on 10-9-1991 where the petitioner was served with the aforesaid termination order. THE termination order reads as under : "your leave application was sanctioned for 5-9-1991 to 7-9-1991. THE application for extension of Medical leave for 8-9-1991 to 9-9-i991 was received on 8-9-1991 but the same was not accept ed by the Management Committee and in spite of the rejection of the said application you did not report for duty. Your services are now no more required. Under these circumstances it is not possible to utilise your services as a clerk and pay you salary. The petitioner filed this writ petition and this Court, vide its order dated 3-10-1991 stayed the operation of the aforesaid impugned order dated 10-9-1991. The Management Committee has filed the counter affidavit and the relevant points to be noted in that counter affidavit were that the respon dent No. 2 did not deny the specific allegation of the petitioner that refusal of the leave was not communicated to him.
(3.) HEARD Sri T. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent/applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. The contention of Sri Tewari are two folded : (i) That the Management was not competent to terminate the services of the petitioner without seeking prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. (ii) That the punishment of termination of services was not pro portional to the wrong committed by the petitioner. Regulation 31 framed under the provision of Section 16 (G) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 reads as under : "punishment of an employee that would require the prior approval of the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, may take any of the following forms : (a) Dismissal. (b) Removal or discharge. (c) Reduction in rank. (d) Diminution in emoluments. The aforesaid Regulation 31 was amended with effect from 10-3-1975 and it also brought the clerks and Class IV employees within the ambit of Regulation 31 if they fulfil the other conditions mentioned in Regulation 100. The compliance of the said provision is mandatory in case the punishment is suggested to be taken as has been provided under Regulation 36. The provision of Regulation 36 (i) reads as under : "the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be com municated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required within three weeks of' the receipt of the charge-sheet to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired to be heard in person. If he or the inquiring authority so desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence will be heard as that in during authority considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person, and to have such witnesses called as he may wish : provided that the enquiring authority conducting the enquiry may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceeding shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. The inquir ing authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from these proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed upon the employee. " Thus, Sri T. N. Tewari has articulately argued that in view of the provisions of law it was mandatory on the part of the Management Committee to give a strict Adherence to the aforesaid Regulations. Sri Tewari was placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Brij Raj Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1988 UPLBEC 123 where a Division Bench of this Court has held that if a termination order is passed without complying with the requirement of Regulation 36, the termination order is vitiated. The aforesaid judgment was delivered by this Court after examining the scheme of the Regulation and particularly Regulations 31, 35, 36 and 100 of Chapter III of the said Regulations. In the case of Bhopal Singh Verma \. Deputy Inspector of Education, 1983 UPLBEC 597 this Court has taken the view that prior approval of District Inspector of Schools is necessary before imposing the punishment upon an employee including a clerk of an Institute. Similarly, in the case of Bali Ram Singh v. Committee of Management, Amar Bir Inter College, Dhanpur, Varanasi, 1993 (3) ESC 57, the learned Single Judge has observed as under : "there is no provision either in the Act or in the Regulations which expressly requires approval by District Inspector of Schools in respect of suspension of a clerk. Regulation 100 only requires approval of District Inspector of Schools in case of termination of service of a clerk and not in case of suspension of a clerk. ";