R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 8442 of 1993 has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII. Rule 5 of the Rules of order dated 19.7.1995, passed by learned single Judge under which the writ petition challenging his dismissal from the post of Principal of R.B.M. Inter College, Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur, by resolution dated 15.12.1991, passed by the approval of the same by U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) by order dated 18.2.1993, has been dismissed. Appellant/petitioner Dharam Veer Gupta (who shall hereinafter be referred to as petitioner) was selected and appointed as principal of the college on 8.3.1973. However, his relations with the employer-smooth from the very beginning and the Committee of Management made first attempt to terminate his services on 26.2.1974. However, as no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) under Section 16G of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act was obtained, the order of termination was challenged by petitioner in Original Suit No- 15 of 1974 in which a temporary injunction was granted in his favour. Ultimately, the Committee of Management withdrew the order of termination dated 26.2.1974. Then, on 1.7.1976 petitioner was suspended. However, the D.I.O.S. disapproved the suspension by his order dated 18.5.1977. Thereafter, by a resolution dated 30.6.1978, petitioner was dismissed from service which was disapproved by the D.I.O.S. on 25.7.1978. The order of the' D.I.O.S. was challenged by Committee of Management. respondent No. 3. in Writ Petition No. 6864 of 1978. It appears that the writ petition filed by the Committee of Management was dismissed. The D.I.O.S. by order dated 2.12.1987 directed the manager to permit the petitioner to work as principal. This order was challenged in High Court in Writ Petition No. 23298 of 1987 which was dismissed on 21.12.1987. On 29.12.1987 again a fresh resolution was passed by the Committee of Management suspending the petitioner which was disapproved by the D.I.O.S. on 4.1.1988, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 543 of 1988, which was dismissed on 20.1.1988. The order of this Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in special leave petition which was dismissed on 6.4.1988.
(2.) The Committee of Management was superseded by State Government by order dated 17.5.1988 and authorised controller was appointed who took over charge and control of the management of the College. The order of the State Government was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4491 of 1988 in which an interim order was passed on 11.8.1988 staying operation of the order of the State Government. The frustrated Committee of Management then started a fresh attempt to get rid of petitioner and passed a resolution on 10.8.1991 suspending petitioner and appointing an inquiry committee comprising of Vishan Chand Gupta, Subhash Chandra. Premi Rajan. Ram Saneht and Smt. Vijai Lakshmi. On 12.8.1991 a memo of charge was issued by manager against the petitioner and same day one Rajendra Singh, lecturer, was appointed as officiating Principal. The Committee of Management informed the concerned bank about its action that henceforth petitioner will not be entitled to operate bank accounts of the College. On 31.8.1991 the D.I.O.S. passed the order that there is no recognized Committee of Management in the College to look after its management and the petitioner will be the principal for the discharge of the affairs of the College and the, petitioner shall be accepted as principal of the College. This order was challenged in this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 25313 of 1991. An interim order was passed on 6.9.1991. In the aforesaid background petitioner did not submit any reply to the memo of charge. The inquiry committee proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and submitted its report dated 16.11.1991 to the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management by resolution dated 15.12.1991 accepted the report of the inquiry committee and resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service which was accorded approval by the Commission on 18.2.1993, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8442 of 1993 in which interim order was granted on 17.3.1993. The writ petition, however, was dismissed by learned single Judge on 19.7.1995, aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed.
(3.) There were several rounds of litigation between the petitioner and the Committee of Management. In the reply submitted by the petitioner before the Commission, the details of the various writ petitions, original suits and appeals, decided and pending, have been given. This background of fierce litigation between the parties is relevant for correctly appreciating the nature of the charges and how they have been dealt with by the inquiry Committee, the Committee Management and finally by the Commission.;