Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was recruited as a J.B.T. teacher on July 16, 1959 was ordered to be removed from service on April 23,1991. His appeal against this order having been rejected by the Govt. vide order dated January 29, 1992, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner impugns the order of removal from service as being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) THE respondents controvert the petitioner's stand primarily on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed in strict conformity with the rules. According to the respondents, the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved in the departmental enquiry. A show cause notice was given to him. After consideration of his reply, the Director, School Education ordered his removal from service. The matter was reconsidered by the appellate authority, who found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. H.S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the punishing authority is not a speaking order. Even the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained as it has taken into consideration various matters which were beyond the charges levelled against the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the claim made on behalf of the petitioner.
(3.) A perusal of the charge -sheet issued to the petitioner vide letter dated April 23, 1986 shows that seven allegations had been levelled against him. Broadly, it was alleged that he had committed certain financial irregularities and was absent from the school on certain days. The Enquiry Officer did not record a positive finding that charges were proved against the petitioner. In fact, it was only held that the petitioner had committed "an irregularity". In fact, with regard to charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, it was held that the petitioner had committed only an irregularity. With regard to charges Nos. 5 and 7, it was held that the allegations did not relate to the petitioner. With regard to charge No. 6 it was observed that the petitioner had redeposited the amount of Rs. 3039.85 paise in different funds. In spite of this, the Director proceeded to order the removal of the petitioner from service on the assumption that "charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stood proved against Shri Satguru Dass." He accordingly ordered his removal from service. The appellate authority after examination of the matter has concluded as under: - "For the reasons stated above, charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 are not such on the basis of which Shri Satguru is removed from service. However, charge No. 3 is very serious and he misused his position and by taking out money from various . funds purchased material against the rules and thus there is doubt about his honesty. Therefore, I reject the appeal of Shri Sat Guru Dass. A copy of this order be sent to Shri Satguru Dass." With regard to charge No. 6, it has been found by the appellate authority that it is "not very serious - ". The charge No. 3 as levelled against the petitioner is as under: - "He by not caring for the approved sources, purchased material of approximately Rs. 26059.16 from various funds and this material was not purchased from approved sources. By doing so, as per Rule 18 of the Students Rules 1972, he did not take the approval of the competent officer and also ignored Appendix 14 and 17 PFR Volume I Part -II and directions given therein.";