- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Both these writ petitions filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi are connected with each other and, therefore, as requested by the learned Counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi aggrieved by the orders dated 6-3-2003 passed by the Committee of Management terminating him and dated 4-11-2003 of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya according approval to the said termination has filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that Pandit Nehru Madhyamik Vidyalay (hereinafter referred to as 'school') is a Junior High School recognized by the Board of Education under the provisions of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act') and salary to the teachers and staff is being paid under the provisions of U. P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as '1978 Act') and other terms and conditions of recruitment etc. are governed by U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as '1978 Rules' ). The petitioner was appointed on 1-9-1978 as Assistant Teacher in the school. The management (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 3) communicated an order dated 6-3-2003 to the petitioner terminating him with effect from 5-2-2003 whereagainst he made a representation before the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 2') on 13-3-2003 alleging that termination without prior approval is illegal and, therefore, the alleged termination order be set aside and he may be treated in service and be paid salary. Assailing the order dated 6-3-2003, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 18426 of 2003. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the respondent No. 2 has issued the order dated 4-11-2003 granting approval to the termination of the petitioner's service whereagainst the Writ Petition No. 50316 of 2003 has been filed. On behalf of respondent No. 3, a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the school has 11 teachers including a Principal and imparting education from class 6th to 8th. A complaint was made on 2-1-2003 by one Dilip Kumar that his daughter Kr. Rani Devi, a student of class 7th-B was misbehaved by the petitioner on 1-1-2003 and, therefore suitable action be taken against him. The Manager of the School, by order dated 4-1-2003 required the Head Master to take necessary action. An explanation was sought by the Principal from the petitioner vide letter dated 7-11-2003. The petitioner instead of submitting any reply sent a letter dated 10-1-2003 requesting that a copy of the complaint, if any, be furnished to him whereafter he would submit his reply. The Principal then issued notice/charge-sheet dated 22-1-2003 containing allegation of misbehaviour with a girl student in the school and said that the copy of the complaint would not be supplied in order to maintain confidentiality and in the interest of the student concerned.
(3.) THE petitioner despite receipt of the said notice did not submit any reply and instead sent a letter dated 25-1-2003 seeking further time. Ultimately he sent reply dated 28-1-2003 denying allegations, requiring the Principal to provide details of the complaint and name of the girl student so that he may submit his further reply. He also made aspersion on the Principal. THE Principal wrote a letter dated 28- 1-2003 requesting the Manager to get enquiry conducted through a sub-committee since the petitioner has levelled allegations against him. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 passed a resolution constituting a sub-committee consisting of Ravindra Babu Chaubey, Onkar Singh, Shyam Babu Dixit, Shiv Ram Pathak and Akhilesh Tiwari, who were to hold a departmental enquiry and submit report. THE enquiry sub- committee issued a notice dated 4-2-2003 fixing 7-2-2003 as the date of oral enquiry requiring the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 7-2-2003 at 10. 00 A. M. at the School premises. THE petitioner appeared on 7-2-2003 and his statement was recorded by the enquiry sub- committee wherein again he demanded copy of the complaint which was accepted by the enquiry sub-committee and vide letter dated 24-2-2003 a photocopy of the complaint was supplied to the petitioner. Enquiry sub-committee thereafter fixed 27-2-2003 for oral enquiry but the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry sub-committee on the said date when the statement of Sri Dilip Kumar, complainant, and father of the girl student was recorded. THEreafter, the enquiry sub-committee submitted its report holding charge of misbehaviour with the girl student proved. Since, the matter was serious, and charge was also found proved against the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 decided to terminate him and passed order to this effect on 6-3-2003 and also sent a copy thereof to the respondent No. 2, who issued notice dated 28- 10-2003 fixing 3-11-2003 giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his defence but he did not avail such opportunity. Respondent No. 2 sent letter dated 4-11-2003 granting approval to the decision of the respondent No. 3 for imposing punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 passed a resolution on 16-11-2003 dismissing the petitioner and the same was communicated vide letter dated 17-11-2003. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 also wherein it has been stated that notice was issued to the petitioner on 28-10-2003 giving him opportunity to place his defence but he did not avail such opportunity and thereafter the order granting approval was passed on 4-11-2003.;