- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this peti tion is whether where four teachers are charge-sheeted for the same misconduct and punishment of removal from service is proposed by the Committee of Manage ment which is modified with regard to three teachers by District Inspector of Schools to stopping of one increment for one year, whether the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner, on parity, can be modified on the ground that the co-delinquents on identical charges have been awarded minor punishment.
(2.) THE short matrix of the case is that the petitioner was a confirmed Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade working since. 1-7-1979 in Rajarsh Purshottam Das Tandon Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Naini, Mahewa, District Allahabad (in brief in stitution ). He and three teachers working C. T grade, namely, Laxmi Kant Bhatt, Ram Krishan Singh and Shiv (in brief C. T. grade teachers) were issued charge-sheet for misconduct on the same and identical charges. THE charges were that in the an nual internal examination of the institu tion of 1983, the teachers refused to sign and accept the notice dated 13-4- 1983 wherein detailed information and programme of examination was circu lated; though in the first meeting of the examination from 7. 15 a. m. to 9. 45 a. m. the teachers participated but in the second meeting of the examination from 10. 00 a. m. to 12. 00 noon, they remained absent; in the examinations held on 2,3,4 and 5th May, 1983 they did not record as to how many students were absent. THE charges were replied by all the four teachers. THE enquiry officer submitted his report and found the petitioner and other C. T. grade teachers guilty of indiscipline, insubor dination and dereliction of duty. THE Management of the institution resolved to remove the teachers from service. THE Management sent the proposal for removal from service with regard to C. T grade teachers to District Inspector of Schools as prior approval for removal is required by law. Since the petitioner was Assisiant Teacher L. T grade, hence the Management sent the proposal for obtain ing prior approval of U. P Secondary Educational Service Commission (in brief Commission ). The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 11-2-1992 modified and proposal sent by the Management for removal from service to stoppage of one increment for one year as the punishment was harsh an disproportionate to the char ges. So far as the petitioner was concerned, the Commission granted its approval in its meeting dated 10-1-1992. It was communi cated by its letter dated 15-1-1992 to Dis trict Inspector of Schools and the manage ment of the institution. The management by its resolution dated 28-1-1992 removed the petitioner from the service and the order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 29-1-1992. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28-1- 1992/29-2-1992 Annexure-27 to the peti tion as well as the order of the Commis sion dated 10-1-1992 communicated, by letter dated 15-1-1992 Annexure-26 to the writ petition by means of the present writ petition. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A. K. Singh learned counsel for the respon dent No. 1 Shri Satya Foot Mehrotra learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 Shri S. N. Srivastava learned stand ing counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Shri Irshad Ali and Shri Rajiv Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the enquiry officer has not recorded the reasons on the basis of which he has found the charges to be proved against the petitioner which was required to be done by enquiry officer as per Chapter III of Regulation 36 (1) of the regulations framed under U. P. Inter mediate Education Act (in brief regula tion ). He further argued that the charges against the petitioner related to the an nual internal examination of the institu tion of 1983 and the charges were not such which warranted removal of the petitioner from service. He further urged that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet could not be held to be proved against the petitioner. He finally urged that the punishment of removal awarded to the petitioner was too harsh and dispropor tionate to the charges levelled against him. And since on the same charges three other C. T. grade teachers who were also found guilty of the identical charges but their punishment from removal from service was found to be not commensurate to the charges by the District Inspector of Schools and only minor punishment was awarded. THE petitioner too was entitled for similar treatment on the principles of parity specially when there was nothing on record to show any other misconduct of the petitioner from 1984 till 1992. On the other hand, Shri S. P. Meh rotra learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has supported the orders of respondents on- the ground that the act of the petitioner anointed to misconduct as per Chapter III of Regulation 32 (1) of the regulations, the learned counsel urged that the enquiry officer, Manage ment and the Commission found the petitioner guilty of the charges, after giving full opportunity of hearing at all stages, therefore, the removal order is jus tified and in any case it does cast any stig ma nor it bars the petitioner from seeking employment elsewhere. He further argued that this Court cannot go into question of adequacy of punishment. The petitioner cannot get any ben0fit of the order dated 11-2-1992 passed by District Inspector of Schools nor the petitioner can claim its benefit as in the petitioners case the ap proval for removal from service was granted prior to the Order dated 11 - 2-1992 passed by District Inspector of Schools. Moreover since the order dated 11-2-1992 passed by District Inspector of Schools has been challenged by the respondent No. 2 in appeal before the Joint Director of Education the petitioner is not entitled for parity.;