SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri G.P. Singh for the pet'tioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3, Sri A.K. Malviya on behalf of respondents No. 2 and Sri S.N. Yadav appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) SRI Singh contended that petitioner was dismissed by the Principal, Shankar Jee Inter College, Patjeewa, P.O. Kasaila. District Mau (hereinafter referred to as the "College") by order dated 16.7.1998 without holding any enquiry whatsoever in accordance with the procedure laid down under Regulations 35 to 38 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (hereinafter referred to as "1921 Act"). He pointed out that on 11.1.1997 the Principal issued a show cause notice on certain allegations which was replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.1997. Thereafter, it appears that the Principal appointed one Sri Shyam Avadh Yadav, an Assistant Teacher, as enquiry officer requiring him to conduct oral enquiry and submit report. The said enquiry officer did not hold any oral enquiry whatsoever and submitted report on 28.1.1997 taking into account the show cause notice dated 11.1.1997 as constituting charge sheet and the petitioner's reply dated 13.1.1997 as his reply to the charge sheet. Based on the said report, the Principal of the College passed the impugned order of dismissal on 16.7.1998 and that too without obtaining any prior approval of D.I.O.S. as contemplated under Regulation 31, Chapter III of the Regulations framed under 1921 Act (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations"). He placed reliance on certain decisions of this Court pronounced by Hon'ble Single Judges in Awadesh Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria 61 others, 1996 (2) UPLBEC 766; Daya Shankar Tewari v. Principal, R.D.B.M., Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1101; Principal, P.N.V. Inter College v. D.I.O.S., Hamirpur and another, 2007 (1) AWC 253; Ram Shiroman Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur and others, 2008 (2) AWC 2147 and a Division Bench judgment in Principal Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichalaul, District Maharajganj and another v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2000 (1) ESC 704. Sri Malviya, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the show cause notice dated 11.1.1997 itself was in fact a charge sheet which was replied by the petitioner on 13.1.1997. and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.1.1997. Considering the same, the impugned order of dismissal was passed. He also placed before the Court certain letters issued to the petitioner requiring him to appear before the Managing Committee and submitted that the said letters constitute an opportunity of defence to. the petitioner before passing the impugned order of dismissal 'by asking him to appear before the Committee of Management and put his defence which he failed to avail and, therefore, he is now estopped from contending that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity. Besides, referring to a Division Bench Judgment in Special Appeal No. 360 of 2006, Ali Ahamad Ansari v. District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, decided on 19.4.2006, he submitted that it has been held therein that prior approval of D.I.O.S. before dismissing a Class-IV employee is not at all required and, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be said to be vitiated due to absence of prior approval of D.I.O.S. He also said that in the Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment, only notice has been issued and the said judgment is still in operation though the matter is pending before the Apex Court.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel and Sri S. K. Yadav adopted the above contentions of Sri Malviya and said that since the enquiry was held after giving charge sheet to the petitioner, there is no illegality in the matter and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;