B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.8.1999 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 employee against the order of termination of his service has been allowed.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent No. 1, while serving as a Lecturer with the respondent No. 4, was served a charge-sheet dated 9.12.1987 leveling various charges, namely absence from duty for a long time without seeking any leave from the Committee of Management and its adverse effect on the education of the children; the Committee of Management could not appoint any other person in his place as was not permitted to do so; his involvement in politics and detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (M.I.S.A.) and National Security Act (hereinafter called the 'N.S.A.') several times. On the date the charge-sheet was served, the said employee was under detention for five months under the provisions of N.S.A. and after holding the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner-respondent No. 1. The Committee of Management forwarded the papers relating to inquiry to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter called the 'Commission') and the said Commission approved the report vide order dated 28.7.1989. The Management on 31.8.1989 decided to dismiss the petitioner-respondent No. 1 from service and as a consequence, the order dated 1.9.1989 dismissing the respondent No. 1 employee was issued. The respondent employee challenged the said approval dated 28.7.1989, the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 31.8.1989 and the consequential order dated 1.9.1989. the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed all the three orders and a direction to reinstate him in service with entire arrears and all consequential benefits within a period of two months was issued vide judgment and order dated 11.8.1999. Hence this special appeal. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-appellant has submitted that undoubtedly, there were large number of charges in the charge-sheet but main charges against the said employee were that he was primarily appointed for teaching English subject to the Intermediate classes but as he had regularly indulged in political activities the Government had detained him in Jail for a long time which resulted disruption in teaching work and in his absence, the education department did not permit the Management to appoint any other teacher and as there was no other teacher in the College who could teach English, the students of the College suffered adversely. In the charge-sheet his earlier detention for a period of 19 months, i.e., from 14.8.1975 to 30.7.1977 and 10.11.1980 to 18.12.1980 had also been referred. The second charge was that the said employee had never informed about his arrest nor he applied for leave, therefore, he remained absent from the College for a very long period. He was absent continuously for a period of five months without any leave etc. since 11.7.1987. He was released from detention after one year of his detention i.e., in July, 1988, therefore, he was absent from duty for complete one year and even after being released from detention, he did not make any attempt to join the College. The said respondent was habitual in remaining absent from the College, for which he had been warned was in the habit of not applying form leave and used to sign in the attendance register forcibly. Findings of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge that the detention was beyond his control and the Management was not prevented to make an alternative appointment during the period of his detention and students did not suffer at all or the result had not deteriorated and principles of natural justice were violated, are not based on evidence on record, therefore, the judgment and order requires to be set aside.
(3.) SHRI Yogesh Kumar Saxena's, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent employee has vehemently submitted that against this very judgment, three other Special Appeals had been filled and all of them stood dismissed, therefore, it is not permissible for this Bench to take a view contrary to the view taken in the said three Special Appeals. No opportunity of hearing was given to the said employee and the order of dismissal had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. As the Management had condoned the absence of the period of detention earlier twice, the same charges could not be levelled against the employee in the subsequent enquiry. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.;