JUDGMENT Shishir Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.7.80 dismissing the petitioner from service and order dated 23.11.1980 passed by Committee of Management dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 25.11.1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's working as a peon.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in me college. It has been stated that due to some malafide intention Sri Suresh Chandra who was the Manager of the college was annoyed with the petitioner and he has threatened the petitioner that he would get the petitioner dismissed from the service. A charge sheet dated 20.6.1980 was served on the petitioner. A copy of the charge sheet has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted a reply on 7.7.1980 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. On 9.7.80 the Inquiry Officer sent a letter to the petitioner to appear on 13.7.80. The petitioner sent a representation to the Principal of the College for appointment of another Inquiry Officer in place oft Sri O.P. Saxena. Then again on 14.7.80 the Inquiry Officer sent a letter intimating the petitioner to appear before him on 17.7.80. On receipt of the aforesaid letter. the petitioner informed the Principal of the College with a copy to the Inquiry Officer that the Inquiry Officer is biased and as such the Inquiry Officer be changed. The Principal of the College by letter-dated 21.7.80 has informed that the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Copy of the: dismissal order dated 21.7.80 has been filed as Annexeure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management had not decided the appeal then the petitioner filed an appeal before the district Inspector of Schools against the order of dismissal and the appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected by the order dated 25.11.1980. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court and has submitted that no opportunity of any kind has been given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations contained in the charge sheet and the appellate authority has also not considered that the charges are not such that can lead to the dismissal of the services of the petitioner.
3. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. It has been stated that the charge against the petitioner was of theft of the college property and the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and after following the procedure as provided in the Act, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. The charge against the petitioner was that he stole away two chairs of the college for which a memo was given by the Principal to the petitioner and Sri Lalu Ram, Carpenter vide its report dated 7.9.78 has informed the Principal that two college chairs were lying in front of the teastall which were repaired by the aforesaid carpenter and the petitioner himself has confessed and made apology, therefore, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not correct.
4. On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that as provided under Regulation 31 of Chapter III of Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, services of Class-IV employees cannot be dispensed with except with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools as in the present case no prior approval of the District Inspector of schools has been taken, therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1101 Dava Shanker Tiwari v. Principal and Ors., 2001 (1) UPLBEC 707, Principal Rashtriya Inter College, Maharajgani v. District Inspector of Schools and 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1216 Sita Ram v. District Inspector of Schools and has submitted that assuming for the purpose of argument that no such prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary I and only an appeal which can be filed before the District Inspector of Schools against an order of dismissal. Even the entire proceedings is vitiated on the ground of violation of Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act read with Regulation 10 thereof specify the procedure for disciplinary action. It has been submitted that no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted. The petitioner objected against the appointment of Sri. O.P. Saxena on the ground of bias as Sri O.P. Saxena has already filed first information report against the petitioner and the matter was under investigation. It has been submitted that ho inquiry report was ever submitted to the petitioner and has relied upon a judgment of 1995 (1) L.B.E.S.R. 917, Committee of Management Shahgani Inter College, Jaunpur v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission. It has also been submitted that the order of dismissal is a non-speaking order as such the same is liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent has submitted that there were several oral and written complaints against the petitioner in regard to his work and conduct. The petitioner stole away two chairs of the college and sold it to a tea stall owner. The chairs of the college were recovered from the tea stall and a memo was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner further tendered his apology for the same. A copy of the memo dated 7.9.78 and the confession made by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexures-11, 12 and 13 along with the counter affidavit of the Principal Sri Gyan Chandra Sharma. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet wherein six charges were framed again him. The charges pertain to the misconduct, insubordination using abusive language, negligence in the duty and absenteeism and the various documents along with the charge sheet were given to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a reply and an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner the Principal has passed the order as the Principal of the institution is the appointing authority. The petitioner-aggrieved by the order of the Principal filed an appeal before the Committee of Management While the appeal of the petitioner was pending the petitioner has filed a representation before the District Inspector of Schools. The respondents further submit that the District Inspector of Schools after hearing the concerned parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-vide its order dated 25.11.80 and the order of dismissal is a reasoned order and cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools has not applied its mind before passing the aforesaid order. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondents that argument of the petitioner to the effect that as Regulation 31 of Chapter III of Intermediate Education Act before passing the order of dismissal has not sought prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, the order itself is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the plea regarding prior approval has never been taken at any stage even in the writ petition. In the instant case even if it assumed that prior approval was not sought, it is submitted that the main object of the prior approval is that the authority may satisfy itself that the procedure laid down in the Regulation 31 Chapter III has been complied with or not.
6. In the instant case the petitioner has filed a representation before the District Inspector of Schools and after giving full opportunity to the concerned parties the District Inspector of' Schools has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Thus it cannot be presumed in any manner that the approval has not been given as provided under the Regulation. The petitioner has worked only for a few years and in the entire career there were various misconducts and the petitioner has admitted his guilt when he was found guilty of stealing two chairs from the college. As the charges leveled against the petitioner were very serious in nature, as such the services of the petitioner has been dismissed after following the procedure as provided under the Act. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is out of out from the date of termination and as no interim order was granted by this Court and after lapse of 26 years it would not be proper in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to work in the institution where he was found guilty of serious misconduct. Respondents have placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 Ashika Prasad Shukla, v. District Inspector of Schools and has placed reliance on para 16 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted as below:
"16. Paragraph 2(3) (iv) of me Second Removal of Difficulties Order is not phrased in a prohibitory language as was the language used in Section 16-F (1) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921: The words prior approval have been used in sub-clause (ii) of paragraph 2(3) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order and a conjoint reading of sub-clause (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (3) of paragraph 2 no doubt, leads to an inescapable conclusion that the appointment would be issued under the signature of the Manager only on the approval having been communicated by the District Inspect of Schools within seven days of the receipt of the papers of where the approval is deemed to have been accorded as visualized by sub-cause (iii) of clause (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. However, appointment if made prior to approval or deemed approval, would became effective from the date of approval of deemed approval as held by the division Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Misra. There is nothing on the record to connote pre-requisite conditions attracting deemed approval were not satisfied in the instant case. The learned Single Judge has also not addressed himself to this facts of the matter and the judgment under appeal on this score too cannot be sustained.
Further reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5858 of 1991 decided on 16.4.2002 Syed Haider Ali Naqvi v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2004 (1) UPLBEC 192 Alok Kumar Dixit v. District Inspector of Schools.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusal of the record there is no dispute to this effect that the petitoner was involved in stealing two chairs of the college and the petitoner has admitted his guilt and the proper procedure was followed before passing the order of termination against the petitioner. It is also clear from the record that the District Inspector of Schools while passing the order on the representation of the petitioner has given full opportunity to the petitoner. As such the contention of the petitoner that the prior approval as provided under the Regulation has not been followed, this will not lead to the order of dismissal against the petitoner as illegal because the purpose of the aforesaid regulation is to inform the authority regarding the action and conduct of an employee. The District Inspector of Schools while considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of the relevant record has come to the conclusion that termination of the petitoner is correct and charges leveled against the petitioner is found to be correct. The order of dismissal of the petitioner is dated 25.7.80 and no interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner as such after a period of 26 years it will not be appropriate to accept the contention of the petitoner to the effect that procedure as provided under the Regulation 31 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act 1921 has not been followed will not give any benefit t6 the petitoner. The order of dismissal has been merged in the appellate order and the respondent while considering the case of the petitoner has considered each and every aspect of the matter.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no illegality in the order and the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.