- (1.) PETITIONER while serving as Teacher in the respondent institution was served with two charge-sheets on 18.2.1982 and 4.3.1982. After receiving reply to both the charge sheets a meeting of governing body of the institution was called on 17.5.1982. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing in the meeting of the governing body held on the above date. Thereafter as per resolution of the governing body, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 18.5.1982. The above resolution in regard to termination of services of the petitioner was further confirmed by the resolution of the governing body in presence of nominee of the State Government on 10.8.1982.
(2.) IT appears that aggrieved by the order of termination dated 18.5.1982 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Education Officer, Sikar. The appellate authority, while allowing the appeal vide order dated 18.12.1985, directed the respondent institution to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. On a further representation been made, the Director, Primary and Secondary Education referred the matter back to the District Education Officer for deciding the appeal afresh in regard to the termination of services of the petitioner. In pursuance to the order dated 18.2.1987 passed by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, the matter again been taken into consideration and finally the termination order was confirmed by the concerned authority vide order dated 11.6.1992 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Though there are no specific Rules governing service conditions of the employees of the institutions receiving grant in aid, however, certain conditions have been provided under the Grant-in-Aid Rules of 1963. Rule 4 provides that the condition of service of every member of the teaching and ministerial staff appointed substantively shall be governed by an agreement executed by him and the governing body in the form given in Appendix III of the Rules. So far as the termination and imposing punishment is concerned, clause (e) of Rule 4 provides that no person on the staff of the institution shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. It has further been provided that an order imposing punishment of the kind referred to in clause (e) above shall contain the reasons thereof and a copy of it shall be given to the person concerned immediately and sent to the Department for information within a month. The remedy of appeal has also been provided under Clause (h) of Rule 4. Apart from clause (i) of Rule 4, even under relevant clause 17 of the agreement as provided under Appendix III further discretion has been given to the Director of Education for deciding the dispute between the parties if any grievance still exists. In the present case also, there is no dispute that the charge sheets were issued to the petitioner and replies also filed to both the charge sheets. The petitioner was also given opportunity of hearing by the governing body before taking the resolution in regard to termination of his services and thereupon the order of termination has been passed. A bare reading of the order passed by the appellate, authority on 18.12.1985 would show that the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the petitioner absolutely on hypothetical considerations. It was only in these circumstances, the matter was remanded back by the Director, Education. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, looking to the nature of allegations made and also punishment imposed, since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the management as also the authorities concerned strictly as per the provisions of the Rules of 1963, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. ;