Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya for respondent no.1, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Adarsh Singh holding brief of Sri Indra Raj Singh on behalf of respondent no.3.
(2.) The petitioner, while holding the post of Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Smarak Inter College, Ram Nagar, Baijabari, district Azamgarh, a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He was issued a charge sheet and the Committee of Management constituted a three member sub-committee to inquire into the charges. The petitioner rebutted the charges by filing reply dated 29.8.1993. The sub-committee completed the inquiry and submitted a report dated 3.9.1995 to the Committee of Management. It was followed by a show cause notice dated 4.9.1995 requiring the petitioner to show cause against the findings recorded by the sub-committee in its inquiry report. Thereafter, the Committee of Management by resolution dated 8.10.1995 resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service. The entire documents relating to disciplinary proceedings alongwith resolution of the Committee of Management was forwarded to the first respondent seeking its approval. A one-member Sub-Committee of the Commission after hearing the petitioner submitted its report dated 26.5.1997 to the Commission, in which it found the petitioner guilty of one of the charges relating to embezzlement of a sum of Rs.37,653/-. The Commission, by impugned order dated 27.5.1997 accepted the report of the Sub-Committee and granted approval to the proposal of dismissal. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- (a) The petitioner was not served with any notice regarding the date fixed before the sub-committee which held the inquiry and thus, the inquiry was exparte. (b) He was also not given any intimation by the Committee of Management regarding submission of the inquiry report nor he was intimated about the meeting dated 8.10.1995, wherein resolution was passed for his dismissal from service. (c) The Sub-Committee of the Commission also did not grant him proper opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner, the first date fixed before the Sub-Committee was 20.1.1997. On that date, one Upendra Singh claiming himself to be representative of Praduman Singh, the alleged Manager, appeared before the Sub-Committee. He filed an application dated 15.1.1997 claiming that the Committee of Management by resolutions dated 18.6.1995 and 7.7.1996 had recalled/ cancelled the entire proceedings undertaken by the erstwhile Committee of Management. On that date, no hearing took place and the matter was adjourned to 3.2.1997. On 3.2.1997, the petitioner was personally present. On behalf of the management, again Upendra Singh was present. He moved a fresh application in which he reiterated the stand taken in the application dated 15.1.1997. On that date, according to the petitioner, again no hearing on merits could take place. The Commission taking cognizance of the applications moved by Upendra Singh, as representative of Praduman Singh, by letter dated 11.2.1997, directed the District Inspector of Schools to submit a report regarding the Management which is validly recognised. The District Inspector of Schools, by communication dated 20.2.1997 apprised the Commission that Praduman Singh had never been recognised as Manager nor his signatures were ever attested. The Commission was further informed that the Committee of Management with Hari Shankar Singh alias Jhinku Singh is the validly recognised Committee. According to the petitioner, he was not informed about the enquiry made by the Commission from the District Inspector of Schools regarding validly elected Committee nor was supplied the communication sent by the District Inspector of Schools dated 20.2.1997. Even after receipt of the report from the District Inspector of Schools dated 20.2.1997, no date for enquiry was fixed and straight away the Commission passed the impugned order. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue as to who was the validly elected committee could not have been resolved without the petitioner being apprised of the enquiry held in that regard. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even after the said dispute was allegedly resolved on receipt of the letter from the District Inspector of Schools, the Commission could not have proceeded to pass the impugned order without fixing a date for hearing of the dispute on merits of the charges levelled against the petitioner.;