- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Sri Paras Math Verma, was appointed as Principal in Shahganj, Public Inter College, Shahjang, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) in the years 1976 after the death of the then Principal, Sri Ram Lakhan Misra, in a clear vacancy of a permanent basis. The institution is a recognised institution in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The administration of the institu tion is run in accordance with the approval scheme of Administration, under Section 16 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Act) has superseded the provisions of U. P. intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the institution is within the purview of 1982 Act.
(2.) ON 15tb January, 1990, the Committee of Management of the institution lodged an FIR against Sri Paras Nath Verma, respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the Principal ). ID the FSR it was alleged that the Principal of the institution has forged the service 0 book of the one Ram Dhani, a retired peon of the institution. ON the basis of the aforesaid report the Committee of Management of the institution on 14-1-1990 decided to hold that an enquiry into the charges against the Principal and appointed a sub-committee for holding that an enquiry into the alleged charges against the principal of-the institution. The Sub committee drew a charge-sheet which was sent to the principal and was served on the principal of the institution. The principal submitted his reply to the charges framed against him. It is alleged that the principal did not appear before the sub-committee as the stand of the principal was that one of personnel of the Sub Committee is prejudiced against the principal and he has contended that he is not likely to get fair enquiry from the Sub-Committee. For this reason he abstained himself from appearing before the Sub-Com mittee. The Sub-Committee holding enquiry submitted that its report on 7-3-1990. The meeting of the Committee of Management was convened on 14-3-1990 and the principal of the institution was informed to the place of the meeting. The information of the aforesaid meeting was also sent to the District Inspector of Schools by registered post. The Committee of Manage ment in its meeting resolved that the services of the principal be terminated and a proposal be sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools. Accordingly, along with a letter, the proposal seeking approval of termination of the services of the principal of the institution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. The management also suspended the principal of the institution. The suspension was, however, not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, who directed, vide letter, dated 20-3-1990 to the Manager of the Institution, that Sri Paras Nath Verma, should be treated as Principal of the Institution and is emoluments etc. may be paid in accordance with law. The aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management by means of a writ petition being writ petition No. 10062 of 1990. The said Writ petition was disposed of by a direction of this Court, dated 6-4-1990 in the following language : ". . . . . . The Commission shall thereafter endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously and possible keeping in view the fact that the institution is without a permanent principal these days. If the Commission fails to decide the matter within four months from the date of receipt of the papers, it will be open to Sri Varma, respondent No. 3, to approach this court may moans of a writ petition for issuing a proper direction. . . . . . " In pursuance of the aforesaid direction the Sub-Committee constitu ted by the Commission, considered the matter at length and discussed all aspects of the matter including the documents relied upon by the both the sides and recorded a finding that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Sub- Committee is unilateral and has not taken into consideration the reply of the principal of the institution. The principal of the institution Sri Paras Nath Varma, was present in the institution on 17-1-1990 and further held that in the absence of proof and documents. the charges against the principal of the institution are not made out. All the records are with the clerk of the office and only Cheque Books and Pass Books are with Sri Varma. The audit of the institution has been completed from 20-9-1988 to 26-9- 1988 for the years 1987-1988. The principal of the institution has produced some extracts from the said audit report in his defence. It was obligatory on the part of the committee of the institution to have got the account of the institution audited before levelling the charges against the principal of the institution for embezzlement. There is absolutely no evidence for the charges framed against the principal. Only stress is on Charge No. 'i' which has not been made out. The matter is still under investigation of the police and the same should be decided by a competent court. With the aforesaid conclusion, the Sub- Committee constituted by the commission submitted its report that the proposal for seeking approval of the dismissal of the services of the principal of the institution be disapproved. The Commission, vide its order, dated 5-10-1990, disapproved the proposal of termination of the principal of the institution. The said order was communicated by the commission to the District Inspector of Schools by letter, dated 6- 10-1990, copy whereof forward ed to the Manager of the institution. The aforesaid order has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. K. Jain and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri D. K. Sahai holding the brief on behalf of the Sri R. N. Singh. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Commission. The counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds : (1) The Commission was not properly constituted as required under Section 4 of the 1982 Act, as such the order of the Commission was no order in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. (2) The procedure of hearing the parties adopted by the Commission deprived the petitioners from an opportunity of meeting the submissions made by the principal of the institution and thereby the impugned order is in failure of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on the said ground. (3) The Commission has committed manifest error apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned order on the grounds which are wholly unsustainable in law and are contrary to the records.;