JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in July, 1966 is Sri Gandhi Junior High School, Sahawar, district Etah. He continued in service as such when on 6,4.1.985, after nearly two decades, he was placed under suspension on the charge that he had submitted a forged mark-sheet at the time of seeking appointment as Assistant Teacher. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Committee of Management respondent No. 3 to which reply was also given by the petitioner. The Committee of Management thereafter recommended to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the services of the petitioner may be terminated. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari conducted a detailed enquiry requiring the Committee of Management as well as the petitioner to produce the documents in support of their respective cases, which were submitted by them. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, not being satisfied with the case of the management, vide its order dated 10.2.1987, refused to grant approval for termination of the services of the petitioner. It has been clearly mentioned in the said order, that the request for grant of approval for terminating the services of the petitioner was turned down as the management has not been able to prove the charges against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work as teacher in the school of respondent No. 3. Even after passing of the said order, the petitioner was not taken back in the school of respondent No. 3 nor was he allowed to work. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who to turn on 27.3.1987, directed the Committee of Management to take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner, and on 10.11.1987 the Accounts Officer of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari ultimately directed the Management to take steps for payment of salary or else the order of single operation would be passed. The respondents still did not pay the salary to the petitioner, and instead, the Committee of Management sent a letter to the petitioner on 5.1.1988 informing him that his services had been terminated, for which the approval had been granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide orders dated 24.12.1987/4.1.1988, which have been filed as Annexure-12 to this writ petition.
2. The petitioner thus, filed this writ petition praying for quashing the aforesaid orders of the Committee of Management and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and also for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as teacher in the school and to pay his salary.
3. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 3 the Committee of Management, a detailed order dated 24.12.1987 of the officiating Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been filed as Annexure-C.A.-9 which is practically an order passed reviewing the earlier order dated 10.2.1987 by which the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had refused to grant approval for termination of the services of the petitioner. In the said order it has been mentioned that against the order dated 10.2.1987, the Committee of Management has already preferred an appeal before the Secretary, U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, which makes it clear that although the order dated 10.2.1987 had already been challenged in appeal, still the Basic Shiksha Adhikari proceeded to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor.
4. I have heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents at some length and also perused the record including the impugned order.
5. Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 24.12.1987 mainly on the three grounds ; firstly, that no fresh enquiry was held by the respondent No. 1, Basic Shiksha Adhikari before passing the impugned order dated 24.12.1987 ; secondly, that before passing the said order the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing ; and thirdly that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not have the power to review its earlier order dated 10.2.1987.
6. From the record, it is clear that the initial order dated 10.2.1987 was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent No. 3 Committee of Management. By the said order a categorical finding had been recorded in favour of the petitioner and thus, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari refused to grant approval for termination of the services of the petitioner. It has come on record that on representations filed by the petitioner in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the latter regularly directed the Committee of Management to take steps for payment of salary to the petitioner to the extent that it was even directed on 10.11.1987 that if the steps for payment of salary were not taken, the order of single operation would be passed against the Committee of Management. It has also come on record that after the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order on 10.2.1987, he was transferred on 10.8.1987 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etah had taken charge as the officiating Basic Shiksha Adhikari and held such charge till 26.12.1987, on which date the regular Basic Shiksha Adhikari joined the post. Two days before handing over the officiating charge as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed the impugned order granting approval for terminating the services of the petitioner by reviewing the order dated 10.2.1987. Admittedly, the said order was passed without holding any fresh enquiry or affording of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by simply re-appraising the evidence, which had been filed before the earlier Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The impugned order clearly amounts to reviewing the earlier order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari which is not permissible under law, especially in the manner in which it has been done. In my view, the impugned order, could not have been passed as the officiating Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not have jurisdiction or power to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor. The authority may have the right to review its order but only in the circumstances where the order has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake and even in such cases, the order cannot be reviewed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned in whose favour the earlier order had been passed. This view is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Gauri Shankar Rai v. Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, 1984 UPLBEC 166 and also a Single Bench decision rendered in the Committee of Management, Janta Vidyalaya Singhpur, Ballia v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia and Ors., 1991 (1) AWC 199 ; (1991) 1 UPLBEC 569.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 24.12.1987/4,1.1988 as well as the communication order dated 5.1.1988 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Committee of Management respectively terminating the services of the petitioner are thus liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
8. It has been stated at the Bar that on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.1.1988, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Teacher and had also been paid his salary. The petitioner has since retired on 30.6.2003 after attaining the age of superannuation. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been stated that the petitioner was paid the salary in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court but no increments had been added to the salary of the petitioner to which he was entitled. It has also been stated that after his retirement the petitioner is not being paid his post retiral benefit.
9. In the circumstances, it is directed that since the termination order has been set aside, the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the payment of salary with increments, etc. the post retiral benefits shall also be given to the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondents shall ensure the payment of difference of salary on account of non-inclusion of the increments in the salary of the petitioner, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 1 District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah. Further the post retiral benefits shall also be accordingly determined and paid to the petitioner within the same period.
10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.