- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of the order dated 27-5- 2002 (contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur whereby he lent approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 27-3-2002 and 10- 4-2002 passed by Committee of Management of Mahanth Bada Shiv Das Udaseen Adarsh Vidyaley Hasanpur, Saidpur District Ghazipur resolving to terminate the services of the petitioner as Head Master.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner began his submissions stating that no charge-sheet was framed or served to the petitioner and hence order of termination lacks in validity. He further submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari accorded approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management without any application of mind, which is discernible from the cryptic order which enumerates no reasons whatsoever and as such, proceeds the submissions, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari acted mechanically and therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated in law. Per contra, learned Counsel for appearing from Committee of Management as also learned Standing Counsel tried to justify the impugned order containing approval urging that the order of the B. S. A. need not be exhaustive as it has been passed agreeing to the contents of the resolution and also charge against the petitioner and therefore, the order lending approval to the resolution has justly been passed. From a perusal of the record, it would transpire that Committee of Management passed resolution dated 27-3-2002 and 10- 4-2002 the substance of which was that the petitioner was absenting from duties unaccountably and further that he had removed records and have not made available the same to the Committee and ultimately, it was resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid resolution was sent to Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ghazipur to which it would further appear, the aforesaid authority accorded approval sans any reasons vide order dated 27-5-2002. It would further appear that prior to according approval, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 26-4-2002 on which date it is alleged that the petitioner appeared but on account of absence of Basic Shiksha Adhikari from the office, no hearing took place. It is further alleged that the petitioner made a representation to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 26-4-2002 and without considering the said representation, and without fixing any next date in the matter, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari proceeded to pass the impugned order lending approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management bereft of any reasons in support of his satisfaction. It would further transpire from the record that no charges were framed in the case nor any charge-sheet was served and further, no disciplinary enquiry is indicated to have been initiated in the matter or any evidence was adduced to substantiate the charge if any against the petitioner. There is also nothing on record suggestive of observing the principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE petitioner having been appointed in the year 1978 claims to have since been confirmed on the post of Headmaster. No doubt, allegations levelled against him were of serious nature but at the same time, due procedure and fair play required that the petitioner should have been proceeded against accordingly in terms of the provisions of Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam and U. P. Recognized Basic Junior High School (Recruitment and Condition of Service for Teachers) Rules, 1978 by serving him charge-sheet and by initiating disciplinary enquiry. Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules deals with the conditions of service which says that no Headmaster or teacher of the recognized Schools may be discharged, removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any reduction in rank or service of notice except with the approval of the B. S. A. The main object of the legislation is to regulate the service conditions of the teachers in the private educational institutions and for ensuring the security of service of the teachers. It is argued that private institution were punishing Teachers on flimsy grounds without framing charges and without giving an opportunity to explain. In the preamble it is also stated that the Act is to provide for terms and conditions of service of teachers and to control of the recognized private educational institution. From a close scrutiny of the statute it is clear that no teacher employed in any private Basic educational institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. It is clear from a perusal of the statute that when a proposal to dismiss, remove or reduced in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher employed in any private educational institution is communicated to the competent authority, the competent authority shall if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment. In this perspective, it is essential that requirement of intendment of the legislature is not satisfied merely by passing a cryptic order running into three lines. Whenever any proposal is received by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, a duty is cast on him to consider (1) whether charges have been framed and served, (2) whether proper enquiry has been conducted, (3) whether principles of natural justice have been observed in compliance, (4) whether the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer/disciplinary Authority has grouting in reasons and finally (5) whether there is any element of bias or mala fides in the action of the Committee in recommending termination (6) whether reply, explanation and other evidence adduced against the teacher or headmaster against whom resolution has been passed have been reckoned with and (7) whether concerned Rules applicable to the case have been observed in compliance. In case the competent authority is satisfied with the requirement, he must assign reasons for enforcing his conclusions in favour of approval of proposal sent by the Committee of Management. A laconic order of approval sans reasons as has been passed in the case in hand, does not satisfy the requirement of the statute.;