MAHIPAL SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, in instant writ petition, is assailing the validity of the decision taken by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad, dated 3.3.2005 and the consequential order of dismissal dated 5.4.2005 as communicated by the Manager of Puwayan Inter College, Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur.

(2.) The facts giving rise to instant writ petition, in brief, are that in the district of Shahjahanpur, there is a recognised aided educational institution, which is governed by the provisions as contained under U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. In the said institution, petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher on 19.9.1972. Thereafter, by communication dated 17.3.1997, promotion was accorded to the petitioner in Lecturer's Grade against the vacancy which was caused on account of death of one Uttam Mishra. District Inspector of Schools also issued consequential order. The Management, it has been mentioned, was not happy with the promotion accorded to the petitioner, and the same had been questioned before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 120120 of 1997. Second writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, as no salary was being ensured to him in Lecturer's grade. On 20.12.1997 a report was submitted by the Principal of the Institution levelling various allegations against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto resolution was passed for instituting departmental proceedings against the petitioner, and the Principal who was complainant, was made Enquiry Officer. Charge-sheet dated 23.3.1998 had been issued. Appointment of R.S. Parmar, Principal, as Enquiry Officer, was questioned. After receipt of copy of charge-sheet, petitioner filed representation dated 18.4.1998 demanding various documents. Petitioner has contended that majority of documents asked for had not been supplied; only some of the documents had been supplied under covering letter dated 27.4.1998. Petitioner has contended that he submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Petitioner has asserted various infirmities in the inquiry proceedings, on account of the fact that the provisions as contained under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act had not been complied with. Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.5.1998. Petitioner has contended that notice was given informing and intimating that on 7.8.1998 report of the Enquiry Officer would be considered, however, no meeting was held on the said date. Thereafter, petitioner submits that meeting was held on 17.9.1998, wherein resolution was passed proposing dismissal of petitioner from service. The said decision was of no consequence without there being approval of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board as envisaged under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, as such entire papers were transmitted for the purpose of obtaining prior approval. Petitioner has contended that he filed detailed objections on 13.9.1999 against the proceedings undertaken by the Management. Petitioner has submitted that further objections were filed on 13.1.2000, 7.2.2000 and 13.3.2000. Petitioner has made categorical statement of fact that matter was heard on 16.2.2004 by one Dr. Kshetrapal Gangwar. Thereafter at no point of time any hearing was done in the matter, and it appears that ex parte hearing was done on 6.1.2005 by Dr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra and Dr. Bodh Narain Singh, and thereafter, on that basis ex parte report had been submitted on 3.5.2005, and on the same date, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board accorded approval to the same and thereafter consequential order of dismissal has been passed. All these actions have been impugned in present writ petition.

(3.) On presentation of writ petition, as serious questions had been raised in respect to the way and manner in which proceedings had been undertaken by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, as such Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate, who represents the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board before this Court, was directed to produce original record.