V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed on 20.7.1964 as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur City which was a private institution established in the year 1956 for imparting education to deaf and dumb students. The institution received grant-in-aid from the State Government since 1958. The petitioner was suspended by the manager of the institution on 29/30.3.87. A charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.4.87/14.4.87. He denied the allegations. It is alleged by the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not hold any enquiry nor gave any opportunity of hearing to defend himself and submitted the report against him.
(2.) Before a final decision could be taken in the matter of the petitioner, the institution was taken over by the State Government by G.O. dated 11.7.88. It was renamed as Rajkiya Mook Vadhir Vidyalaya. Gorakhpur. Since the institution was taken over by the Government, the petitioner became an employee of the State Government and by order dated 5.4.91, the petitioner was appointed in suspension animation w.e.f. 11.7.88 as teacher in the institution. It was also ordered that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance but the petitioner alleges that no subsistence allowance was paid to him. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 1723 of 1987 which was subsequently withdrawn by him on 15.2.92 and thereafter he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1992, This petition was disposed of by this Court on 4.11.93 with a direction to the respondents to take decision with regard to enquiry within a period of three months and if the respondents feel that a fresh enquiry was necessary, they may hold it within the period of three months and in case the orders are not passed by the respondents, the suspension order shall be ceased to be operative. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 15.5.95 dismissed the petitioner from service. It is this order dated 15.5.95 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Rai, brief holder, State of Uttar Pradesh appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the enquiry conducted by the Manager was ex parte and no opportunity of hearing was given to him nor any date for enquiry was fixed by the enquiry officer nor he was supplied copy of the enquiry report. He further urged that the respondents did not hold any enquiry themselves, though this Court permitted the respondents to hold the enquiry but they relied on the earlier ex parte report which was submitted without following principles of natural justice. He further urged that this enquiry report dated 28.3.88 was never served on the petitioner. It was ex parts, therefore. It could not have been accepted. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the records in compliance of the order of the Court as well as the enquiry report dated 28.3.88. He urged that from perusal of the enquiry report, it is established that the petitioner did participate in the enquiry proceedings, therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner having been dismissed from service by the respondents, the impugned order does not call for any interference.;