- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Rakesh Pandey appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) VIDE impugned order dated 15-1-1985 contained in Annexure-17 of the writ petition the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of misconduct while he was working as Class IV employee in the institution in question. The institution is run and controlled by the Committee of Management of Prasad Uchchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Pees Naharia Pandepur, Varanasi through its Manager which was a Higher Secondary School and recognized under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 therefore, the provisions of the aforesaid Act and regulations framed thereunder is applicable in the case of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the order of removal has been passed without holding any disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to have his say in the matter, therefore, violative of principle of natural justice, fair play and not sustainable in the eye of law. He has further urged that prior to holding of such inquiry and taking impugned disciplinary action against the petitioner neither any charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any notice and information regarding the date and place of inquiry has been given to him. Not only this but alleged inquiry report was prepared without holding either any ex-parte inquiry or full- fledged inquiry, even inquiry report has not been supplied alongwith show-cause notice. It is a case of no inquiry, and no opportunity as distinguished from inadequate or reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that prior to taking impugned action against the petitioner prior approval as required under the provisions of Regulation contained under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act has not been taken by the respondents from the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, on this count also the impugned order of removal cannot be given effect to and is of no legal consequence. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents there is no indication at all as to whether all these steps were taken while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case I have no hesitation to hold that the whole exercise were undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority without holding any disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner as such it was a farce exercise, thus cannot sustain. Thus I am of considered opinion that the inquiry proceeding conducted against the petitioner is wholly a farce exercise and principles of natural justice has not been observed while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the charge-sheet was duly served upon the petitioner and any notice regarding the disciplinary inquiry to be held on particular time and particular place has been served upon him. Not only this but there is no material on record on the basis on which it can be held that the findings of inquiry officer whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found proved against him, has been served upon the petitioner alongwith show-cause notice issued to him. Therefore, the whole disciplinary inquiry is vitiated under law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly the orders dated 15-1- 1985, 15-4-1985 and 30-3-1991/27-3-1991 passed by respondents are hereby quashed. As a result on which the petitioner shall be treated to be reinstated in service but only for the purpose of holding a fresh inquiry from the stage of service of charge-sheet upon him. In case the petitioner succeeds in the disciplinary inquiry to be held against him from the stage of service of charge-sheet already issued to him the disciplinary authority shall also pass the order with regard to the continuity of service and any salary payable to the petitioner from the date of his dismissal till the date of such reinstatement. The respondents are directed to hold disciplinary inquiry within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. However, the petitioner shall participate in the disciplinary inquiry to be held against him.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations, the writ petition succeeds and allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Petition allowed. .;