SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Both these writ petitions filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi are connected with each other and, therefore, as requested by the learned Counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONER Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi aggrieved by the orders dated 6-3-2003 passed by the Committee of Management terminating him and dated 4-11-2003 of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya according approval to the said termination has filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE petitioner despite receipt of the said notice did not submit any reply and instead sent a letter dated 25-1-2003 seeking further time. Ultimately he sent reply dated 28-1-2003 denying allegations, requiring the Principal to provide details of the complaint and name of the girl student so that he may submit his further reply. He also made aspersion on the Principal. THE Principal wrote a letter dated 28- 1-2003 requesting the Manager to get enquiry conducted through a sub-committee since the petitioner has levelled allegations against him. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 passed a resolution constituting a sub-committee consisting of Ravindra Babu Chaubey, Onkar Singh, Shyam Babu Dixit, Shiv Ram Pathak and Akhilesh Tiwari, who were to hold a departmental enquiry and submit report. THE enquiry sub- committee issued a notice dated 4-2-2003 fixing 7-2-2003 as the date of oral enquiry requiring the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 7-2-2003 at 10. 00 A. M. at the School premises. THE petitioner appeared on 7-2-2003 and his statement was recorded by the enquiry sub- committee wherein again he demanded copy of the complaint which was accepted by the enquiry sub-committee and vide letter dated 24-2-2003 a photocopy of the complaint was supplied to the petitioner. Enquiry sub-committee thereafter fixed 27-2-2003 for oral enquiry but the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry sub-committee on the said date when the statement of Sri Dilip Kumar, complainant, and father of the girl student was recorded. THEreafter, the enquiry sub-committee submitted its report holding charge of misbehaviour with the girl student proved. Since, the matter was serious, and charge was also found proved against the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 decided to terminate him and passed order to this effect on 6-3-2003 and also sent a copy thereof to the respondent No. 2, who issued notice dated 28- 10-2003 fixing 3-11-2003 giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his defence but he did not avail such opportunity. Respondent No. 2 sent letter dated 4-11-2003 granting approval to the decision of the respondent No. 3 for imposing punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 passed a resolution on 16-11-2003 dismissing the petitioner and the same was communicated vide letter dated 17-11-2003.