V. M. Kande, J. - (1.) By this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to withdraw the impugned order dated 30-9-1998 and order dated 22-6-1999.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under : The petitioner joined services of municipal Corporation as Assistant Teacher on 23-7-1990. It was alleged by the respondents that on 30-6-1997 the petitioner removed the pages from the notice book and thereafter on 1-7-1997 it was suspected that the petitioner was responsible for stealing the muster book from the office of the said School. On 24-9-1997 the petitioner was called upon to make a statement which was recorded by the respondents. Thereafter, on 26-6-1998 a notice was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to remain present before the Inquiry Officer. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner. Firstly, that the petitioner had removed certain pages from the notice book which was to be circulated in various classes. Secondly, it was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for removing the Muster Roll from the office of the School. After the enquiry was completed and the statement of the petitioner was recorded, thereafter on 3-12-1998 the petitioner received the impugned "order which was signed by the education Officer on 24-9-1998 and yearly increments of the petitioner were stopped permanently. In the petition it is alleged that the petitioner thereafter had sent various representations and had demanded the statement recorded by the inquiry Officer as also the inquiry report along with all other relevant papers. First letter demanding the aforesaid documents was sent on 28-12-1998 and thereafter three reminders dated 2-1-1999, 27-1-1999 and 10-2-1999 were sent to the Education Officer. Finally on 8-3-1999 copy of enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. However, other documents were not supplied. The petitioner filed Review Application dated 16-3-1999 for reviewing the impugned order. However, his review application was rejected. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said orders. However, the appeal was also dismissed.
(3.) Grievance of the petitioner is that after preliminary inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 2, inquiry report and the other documents on which reliance was placed by the Inquiry Officer was not supplied to him and before giving him any opportunity to make his submission on the said report, the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2. It was alleged that therefore, there was a breach of principles of natural justice. Second grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order states that petitioner has partially accepted the charges levelled against him and learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the statement of the petitioner which was recorded by the Inquiry officer. It is submitted that nowhere in the entire statement the petitioner admitted any of the charges which were levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Education Officer did not have the jurisdiction or authority to pass impugned order.;