V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who was a class IV employee of the institution, known as C. P. K. U. Inter College, Musanagar, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as the institution, challenged the order passed by the principal of the Institution, dated Nth September, 1975, and the appellate orders rejecting his appeals.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a peon (class IV employee) on 1-1-1974 by the principal of the Institution. Subsequently, he was confirmed as such with effect from 1-7-1973. The allegation of the petitioner is that he discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the entire staff of the institution and there was no complaint of any sort against him. It is further alleged that Mohd. Yasin and Mahadeo, other two peons of the institution, were not on good terms with the petitioner, with the result they lodged a false report with the clerk of the institution on 20th May, 1975, to the effect that the petitioner had removed some timber belonging to the institution in the evening of 19th May, 1975. It appears that on the basis of the said report the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently on 2nd August, 1975, he was served with a charge sheet. One Ram Autar Pathak, a Lecturer of the institution, was appointed as Enquiring Officer. By the aforesaid charge sheet the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation by 20th August, 1975. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet before the Enquiring Officer. In the said explanation the petitioner denied the allegations him inasmuch as he stated that he was not present in the institution on the day the theft is said to have been committed. On 20th August, 1975, the Enquiring Officer directed the petitioner to advice documentary evidence in support of his stand taken in his explanation. It is alleged that as no date was fixed, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiring Officer on 11th September, 1975, on his own accord and filed the certificates from two Lecturers testifying that the petitioner was not present in the institution on the day when the theft is alleged to have taken place, on 18th September, 1975, the petitioner heard that some registered letter was sent to him but the same was not delivered to him and thus the said letter returned undelivered. On the said date, i. e. 18th September, 1975, the service of the petitioner were terminated by the order of the principal of the institution. On 10th October, 1775, the petitioner filed as appeal before the Committee of Management of the institution, but the same was rejected on 20th May, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, but the same was also rejected by an order dated 6th July, 1977. Which was served on the petitioner on 20th July, 1977.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions relating to the procedure to be followed before imposing punishment of removal or dismissal from service in regard to class IV employees are virtually the same as provided by unamended Article 311 (a) of the Constitution and the petitioner having not been given opportunity of examining his witnesses in defence and cross - examining the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in support of the charge, was denied the opportunity of showing cause and therefore the order of removal passed against him is illegal and void. The petitioner has asserted in the petition that he was never informed of the date of enquiry by the Enquiring Officer and it was only on 19th September, 1975, that he learned that some registered letter was sent at his home address, but the same returned to the Enquiring Officer undelivered.;