RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) IT has been stated by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Principal of the institution in question on 4.11.1987 and in pursuance thereof he joined his duties on 12.11.1987 and his name was approved by the Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 11.2.1988. It has fur­ther been stated that all of a sudden by a resolution of the committee of man­agement dated 21.9.1990 his services were terminated without giving any no­tice or conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court by means of the order dated 17.11.1990 stayed the operation of the impugned order. This Court by means of the order dated 6.12.1990 has di­rected to hold fresh enquiry which would be completed within a period of three months by a sub-committee. It has been further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that relevant documents have not been supplied to the petitioner and the whole proceeding proceeded ex parte which culminated in pass­ing of the impugned order dated 1.4.1991, which was also challenged by filing an amendment application. In Paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the amended portion of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that the petitioner has not been associated with the enquiry which has been conducted by the subcommittee to which a reply has been tendered in the counter-affidavit filed by the committee of manage­ment and there was no specific denial and further no date or time of the meeting of the sub-committee has been communicated to the petitioner. It has also not been indicated in the counter-affidavit whether the petitioner has been sup­plied with the copies of the documents on which reliance has been placed dur­ing the proceedings and further there was also no denial to the fact whether opportunity for cross-examination has been afforded to the petitioner or not.
(3.) THIS Court in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Rastogi v. State of U.P. and others, 2004 (22) LCD 1 Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Limited, 2003 LCD 610 Shafatullah v. Commissioner, Varanasi, 2002 (2) LCD 733 Radhey Shyam Pandey v. The Chief Secretary, State of U.P. and others 2000 (85) FLR 227 (Alld) and Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another 2000 (1) UPLBEC 541=2000 (86) FLR 19 (Alld) (Sum.) has held that if no date, time and place is fixed and communicated to the delinquent for conducting inquiry after reply to the charge-sheet is submitted, the disciplinary proceedings vitiate.;