- (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has been terminated from service by the impugned order dated 12.8.1999(Annexure-9) by the respondent no. 8. The petitioner has challenged the same inter-alia on a number of grounds such as (a) that the impugned order of termination has not been passed by the appointing authority i.e the Chairman, Chhotanagpur Diocesan Education Society, who as per Annexure-1 had issued the letter of appointment to the petitioner. (b) that the procedure for initiation of a departmental proceeding and its conduct have not been followed by the respondent- managing committee of the school. (c) that the order of termination is not yet approved by the respondent No.2, Vidyalaya Sewa Board in whose place now the competent authority under department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand has entered into its shoes, which is in contravention of specific provisions of Section 18(3)(gha) of the Bihar NonGovernment Secondary School(Taking over of Management & Control) Act, 1981.
(3.) According to the petitioner, he was working as acting principal of St. Columba's Collegiate High School, Hazaribag and, thereafter, he was appointed as principal of St. Paul School, Ranchi by the respondent no. 5 vide letter of appointment dated 5.6.1992 and approval of the same was granted by the Vidyalaya Sewa Board(Respondent No. 2) intimated vide letter dated 4.12.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner was working to the satisfaction of the respondentauthorities while he was taken by surprise on the issuance of the order of suspension on 3.2.1999 (Annexure-4). Further, his salary was with held from April, 1997 onwards and later on a chargesheet was issued on 24.2.1999(Annexure-5). The petitioner replied to the same vide his reply dated 30.3.1999(Annexure-6). The petitioner, however was totally in dark about the proceedings and suddenly he was served with second show cause on 31.7.1999 seeking explanation as to why his services be not terminated. In response to that petitioner furnished a detailed reply(Annexure-8) but the respondent no. 8 proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 12.8.1999(Annexure-9), which is under challenge in the present writ petition.;