Ashok Khare - (1.) .
(2.) -By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the disciplinary proceedings and the order dated 7th October, 1986 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) debarring him from all remunerative works and benefits extended to a teacher by the Board of High School in connection with the examination. In brief the facts are that the petitioner was the Principal of the institution but he was not appointed as a Centre Superintendent for the Intermediate Examination commencing from 11 -3 -86 to 8 -4 -86 and one Ajit Singh Yadav, a teacher of the institution was appointed as a Centre Superintendent but the latter did not join on account of some ailment and the petitioner worked as Centre Superintendent since 11th March to 14th March, 1986. On 14th March, 1986 petitioner handed over the charge of Centre Superintendent to one Hardev Singh Yadav who was next junior to the petitioner. All this was treated to be a misconduct on the part of the petitioner and he was served with a notice containing several questions about his misconduct (Annexure 11 to the writ petition), in which Illrd question was as to why the petitioner did not hand over the charge to his next junior when the person appointed as Centre Superintendent did not turn up on the date of examination. Petitioner submitted the explanation and after considering the same impugned order dated 7 -10 -86 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) was passed debarring the petitioner from all remunerative work of the Board of High School and Intermediate in connection with examination for 5 years. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that no Regulation was framed in respect of such misconduct hence action taken against the petitioner is without any basis and that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing, therefore impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) STANDING Counsel on the other hand urged that the provisions made under Chapter 6 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, are the sufficient provisions for taking action against misconduct and questionnaire supplied to the petitioner was sufficient opportunity to him, and therefore, impugned order is not violative of principles of natural justice and is not liable to be quashed by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties questions for consideration are as to whether there was any provision for taking action against the misconduct committed in examination work and whether the principles of natural justice have been complied with.;