N. C. KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Moola Ram Vaishnaw had been working as a Teacher Grade III in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan (the respondent No. l ). In 1965 his services were terminated, under the orders passed by the District Education Officer (the Inspector of Schools), Jodh-pur (the respondent No. 2), on the ground that he remained absent from his duty with effect from 5. 51. 65 for about three years. He challenged the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition which was registered in this Court as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1044/68. THE writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11. 11. 71 and the order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 2 was set aside on the ground that no enquiry had been held against the petitioner, who was not given a show cause notice and as such the order of dismissal was against the rules and against Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was, however, observed that the Government would be free to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law. THE petitioner was thus re-instated in service with effect from 24. 1. 1972. Two charge-sheets both dated 232. 1973 were served on the petitioner: one in regard to the misconduct prior to 24. 1. 1972 and the other relating to the mis-conduct after that date. THE first charge-sheet contained three charges. THEy were that while he was posted as an Assistant Teacher in the Government School, Shergarh, he remained absent from his duty with effect from 5. 1. 1. 65 without getting his leave sanctioned; that during the period of his posting in that school, he had been violating the instruction issued by the department; and that during that period he had been levelling false charges against the authorities and had been used objectionable language against them. THE second charge-sheet related to five instances of mis-conduct. THEy were that while working as an Assistant Teacher in Govt. School, Bala, he had left the head quarters and remained absent from his duty without getting his leave sanctioned from the Head Master; that when the Inspector of Schools asked his explanation in this regard, instead of giving of explanation thereto, he levelled false charges against others; that he filed a false complaint against the Head Master of the said school before the Inspector of Schools stating that the Head Master had abused him; that he had not complied with the instructions issued by the department but had flouted them, and that he remained absent from his duty with effect from 10. 5. 72 without getting his leave sanctioned. THE petitioner denied the charges against him in both these charge-sheets and Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry. THE petitioner did not participate in the enquiry inspire of various letters written to him by the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry had to be adjourned from time to time, and ultimately the Enquiry Officer had to proceed ex-parte. THE petitioner filed a Writ Petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. ' 178/78, challenging, inter-alia, the enquiry and charge-sheets. THE said writ petition was contested but at the time of hearing, on the learned Govt. Advocate making a statement that enquiry against the petitioner would be completed within a period of two months, the petitioner did not press the petition which was dismissed as such. THE Enquiry Officer after recording the remaining evidence produced by the department, held that all the three charges of first charge-sheet and five charges of second charge-sheet stood established against the petitioner. He submitted his report to the respondent No. 2, who vide notice dated 20. 1. 80 (Ex. 17) intimated the petitioner that he had carefully considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and was of the opinion that the services of the petitioner should be terminated forthwith and his absence from duty for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72 and from 10. 5. 72 to Feb. , 1979 be treated as absence without leave and directed the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. A copy of the Enquiry Report was enclosed along with the above said notice.
(2.) INSTEAD of sending reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 447/80. In that Writ Petition he challenged notice Ex. 17 and the enquiry proceedings. Vide order dated 5. 9. 80 (Ex. 18), the Writ Petition was allowed only to the extent that the petitioner was held entitled to receive all the emoluments from the respondent for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72 but the Writ Petition in ail other respects was dismissed. On 6. 7,1981, the respondent No. 2 passed order (Ex. 20) recording the fact that inspite of service of notice Ex. 17, the petitioner had failed to show cause against the proposed action within the time mentioned in the notice or at any time thereafter and observed that he was in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to the second charge-sheet dated 23. 2. 73 and that the charges therein were grave enough to warrant the punishment of termination of service as proposed in the show cause notice and consequently the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect and his absence from duty for the period from 10. 4. 72 to Feb. , 1979 would be treated as un-authorised one. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for quashing the order of the dismissal Ex. 20 passed by the respondent No. 2 and all the proceedings leading thereto on the grounds that the charge-sheets had been issued to him malafide, that the enquiry had been held against the principles of natural justice and the respondent No. 2 had not applied his mind before passing order Ex. 20 and that it is not a speaking order and as such cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition has been opposed on merits as well as on the ground that the petitioner having not availed the remedy of appeal provided under the rules, cannot ask for any relief from this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The main attack on behalf of the petitioner is that Ex. 20, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a speaking order. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As noted above the respondent No. 2 has recorded in Ex. 20 that he had considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and was in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to the charges of second charge-sheet dated 23. 2,73 and that they were grave enough to warrant the punishment of termination as proposed in the show cause notice Ex. 17. Admittedly, in the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer had discussed the evidence produced by the department and had given reasons in support of his findings. We are of the view that the respondent No. 2 having agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not required to again discuss the evidence produced during the enquiry and to come to the same rinding as that of the Enquiry Officer and to give same reasons in support of such findings before passing the order of dismissal. Our view finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana (I) and State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan (2 ). The order Ex. 2 thus cannot be said to be a non-speaking one and cannot be assailed on that ground.
(3.) IT has next been contended that the enquiry was an ex-parte one and it violated the principle of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was not given to the pettioner to defend him during enquiry. As noted above, the petitioner had tiled Writ Petition No. 447/80, challenging the enquiry proceedings as well as the show cause notice Ex. 17 and the Writ Petition was dismissed in all respects except that the petitioner was held entitled to the payment of arrears for the period from 5. 11. 65 to 23. 1. 72. The validity of the enquiry and notice Ex. 17 was thus up held and the petitioner cannot challenge the same again in this Writ Petition. Even otherwise find from the record that the petitioner did not co-operate with the Enquiry Officer and did not join enquiry proceedings inspite of various opportunities having been given by the Enquiry Officer to him. Even after the dismissal of his Writ Petition No. 178/78 vide order dated 2. 2. 1979 (Ex. 11), the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer had to complete the enquiry against him ex-parte. We, therefore, do not find any ground to hold that the enquiry was held against the principle of natu-ral justice. The impugned order (Ex. 20) has been passed after considering the evidence produced in the enquiry and considering the gravement of the charges proved against the petitioner and we do not think that any case had been made out for interference by this Court. It may also be noticed that the language used by the petitioner in the two letters quotted at pages 26 and 27 of the Enquiry Report is so filthy and objectionable that it cannot even be re-produced in this judgement. The petitioner was a teacher who was expected to educate the young children coming to the school and was not expected to use such a language. For this reason also we do not think that this case calls for any interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. . ;