Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) THE order dated 25th June, 1987 (Annexure -15 to the writ petition) approving the proposal for removal of the petitioner from service by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Commission for short) and the consequent resolution dated 19.7.1987 (Annexure -16 to the writ petition) passed by the Committee of Management removing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 20th July, 1987 pursuant to the finding in the domestic enquiry is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Mr. Budhwar learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the removal of the petitioner from service on two fold grounds namely that the charges 1 to 5 all related to the petitioners working as part time lecturer in Economics in Hindu College without any sanction or permission of the Committee of Management of the Rishikul Secondary School, Katghaur, district Moradabad where the petitioner was a L.T. grade teacher cannot be sustained on the ground that before accepting the part time assignment the petitioner through an application made to the Manager through the Principal obtained no objection and, therefore, the charge cannot be sustained. Secondly, he contends that the other charges even if proved would not warrant removal from service (sic) grounds he contends that neither the order of approval of the Commission nor the consequential resolution removing the petitioner from service can be sustained. Mr. Budhwar however, confined his argument mainly on the first ground.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner having been found guilty of seven out of eight charges his removal from service is justified. The authority having inflicted the punishment this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. The alleged permission cannot be treated to be a permission given by the Committee of Management. Therefore, the alleged permission contained in Annexure -1 is not a permission in the eye of law. The charges proved being grave in nature the action taken is justified. There being no perversity in the finding and the same having not been so challenged by the petitioner this court cannot interfere with the orders impugned. Section 16 -G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) prescribes that the condition of service of a teacher in a recognized Institution would be such as may be prescribed by the Regulations framed under the said Act and in the agreement between the management and such employee in so far as such agreement is not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act or the Regulations Regulation 32 Chapter III of the Regulation framed under the said Act (hereinafter referred the Regulation) provide he condition for removal from service or other punishment could be inflicted on a teacher. Regulation 32 provides as follows: 32. (1) An employee may be dismissed from service on grounds, such as gross insubordination, deliberate or serious neglect to duty, gross misconduct or commission of an act which constitutes a criminal offence, dishonesty, corruption, misappropriation of funds, ex -perversity or moral turpitude. (2) An employee may be removed from service on the grounds mentioned above as also on the grounds of inefficiency in administration or in tuitional work or unauthorised tuition or employment. (3) An employee may be reduced in rank or subjected to diminution in emoluments on grounds such as deficiency in administration, unsatisfactory work or conduct, lack of interest in co -curricular activities or discharge of examination duties or doubtful integrity, reduction may be to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale.
(3.) A teacher may be dismissed from service on any of the grounds namely insubordination, deliberate or serious neglect of duty, gross misconduct, commission of an act constituting criminal offence, dishonesty, corruption, misappropriation of funds, ex -perversity or moral turpitude. A teacher can be removed from service on the grounds of inefficiency in administration or institutional work or on account of unauthorised tuition or unauthorised employment in addition to the grounds mentioned in clause (1) of Regulation 32 referred above. Clause (3) provides for other punishment by way of reduction in rank or to a lower stage in a time scale on the ground of deficiency in administration, unsatisfactory work or conduct, lack of interest in co -curricular activity or discharge of examination duties or doubtful integrity.;