- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel ap pearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) BY means of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash ing the orders dated 7-1-1984, 14-4-1986 and 11-8-1989. BY order dated 7-1-1984 the petitioner was suspended from service, vide order dated 14-4-1986 he was dismissed from the post of Clerk cum Librarian and vide order dated 11-8-1989 the District In spector of Schools accorded approval to the dismissal of the petitioner. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Clerk-cum-Librarian in Maiidia Islamia In termediate College, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as the college, was suspended. Thereafter a chargesheet was served upon him on 28-3-1964 and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation regard ing other charges levelled against him. On receipt of the chargesheet, the petitioner applied for the copies of the documents on the basis of which the charges were framed but the same were not supplied to him. It was on 2-7-1985 that a news item was pub lished in the local newspaper, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer on 20-7-1985. The petitioner on receipt of the said information applied for adjournment of the case on medical ground. However, no other date was given to the petitioner for his appearance before the enquiry officer and the enquiry was conducted. to the meanwhile, it is alleged that the petitioner also sent his explanation/reply of the chargesheet by the registered post; but the letter sent by him was not received by the Manager of the college on the ground that on, the envelop although the name of the petitioner was mentioned but his address was not given. After conclusion of the en quiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer before the Management Committee on 9-4-1986 and on the same date the Management Committee on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer dis missed the petitioner from services. The order/resolution of dismissal passed by the Committee of Management was communi cated by the principal of the college to the petitioner vide letter dated 14-4-1986. The petitioner objected to his dismissal from services before the District Inspector of Schools, who appears to have sent for the papers from the manager of the college, but ultimately approved the dismissal of the petitioner by the order dated 11-8-1989. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court and filed the present petition for the aforementioned reliefs. On behalf of the contesting resp dents a counter affidavit has been filed deing the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been asserted that the procedure prescribed under the Regulations, framed under the Act, for taking disciplinary action against the teachers and employees of the institu tion was fully followed. It has also been asserted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing, but he deliberately did not participate in the enquiry and did not avail of the opportunity of hearing. It has also been stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were of quite serious nature, whicn have been found to be proved. Therefore, the services of the petitioner were rightly dispensed with. It has also been stated that the institution in question is a minority institution. There fore, the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not at all required and that the orders passed against the petitioner are quite valid and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner was a permanent employee (Clerk-cum-Librarian) of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, his services could not be terminated without obtaining prior ap proval of the District Inspector of Schools, as provided in Regulation 31 of the Regula tions framed under Section 16-G (3) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case with the help of Regulation 100, framed under the aforesaid Act. According to him the order of dismissal was passed long before the approval was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools. LEARNED counsel further submitted that the proce dure prescribed under Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations, framed under the Act was not followed, in asmuch as, the petitioner was neither af forded any opportunity of hearing, nor he was supplied the copies of the relevant documents. Even the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him. It has also been submitted that on receipt of the en quiry report, the services of the petitioner were at once dispensed with, without afford ing an opportunity of hearing to him by the Committee of Management. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of the documents copies of which were applied for, by him and on which char ges were based, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit the reply/explanation of the chargesheet. In spite of the applica tion made by the petitioner, the aforesaid documents were not supplied to him. He was thus denied an opportunity of defend ing himself.;