JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of his termination dated 25.1.1986, Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
3. The petitioner was working as peon in Ashok Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harkhapur, district Jaunpur. He was charge-sheeted by the Management on 31.7.1985 and 13.9.1985. It is alleged that the services were terminated without holding any enquiry on 20.3.1986 by the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval for termination of the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.1986, Annexure-14 to the writ petition and as such there is no infirmity in the order of termination dated 25.1.1986 and 20.3.1986.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court. Principal, Rastriya Inter College, Bali Nichlaul, District Maharajganj and Anr. v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and Ors., 20OO (1) AWC 831 : (2OOO) 1 UPLBEC 707 and Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Principal, Smt. Ramwanti Devi, Beni Madho Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mirzapur and Ors., 1998 (1) AWC 381 ; 1998 Lab IC 1252. He submits that the order of termination is illegal inasmuch as prior approval of every Class IV employee was necessary in view of Regulation 31 read with Regulation 100 of the Regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 31 of U. P. Education Manual provides :
"31. Punishment to employees for which prior sanction from Inspector or Regional inspectress would be essential may be any one of the following :
(1) Discharge, (2) Removal or Termination, (3) Demotion in grade, (4) Reduction in emoluments.
5. It is submitted that under Regulation 31, the Principal or Headmaster would be competent to give above punishment to fourth Class employees. In case of punishment awarded by competent officer, the fourth class employee may appeal to Management Committee. This appeal must be preferred within one month of the date of intimation of the punishment and Management Committee on receipt of appeal will decide the matter within six weeks. On consideration of all necessary records and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee, if he wants to appear before the Management Committee, it will give its decision. Thus, under the regulation, a fourth class employee would also have a right to represent against the decision of the Management Committee on his appeal to the District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girts Schools within one month of the date of intimation of the decision.
6. If Management Committee does not give its decision on above appeal within stipulated period of six weeks, the concerned employee after the expiry of above six weeks may represent directly to District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspectress of Girls School, who would give its decision within three months from the date of receipt of the representation and his decision would be final.
7. It is settled law that the punishment can be awarded after prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Inspectress of Girls School. Since approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not obtained, the decision of the Committee of Management is bad in law.
8. It is submitted on behalf of respondents that Regulation 31 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Regulations while providing for prior approval in case of Class IV emplpyees the said paragraph refers to all employees and there is no reason to exclude Class IV employees from the applicability of the said regulation. Subsequent paragraph of the Regulation 31 also refers to Class IV employees.
9. This Court in the case of Principal, Rastriya Inter College A.W.C. 206 (supra) has held that prior approval in case of dismissal of non-teaching staff is necessary and if such prior approval is not taken before termination of the services, the termination is illegal.
10. The learned single Judge in Daya Shankar Tiwari v. Principal, Smt. Ramwanti Deui Beni Madho Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mirzapur and Ors.. 1998 (1) AWC 381 : 1998 Lab IC 1252, has held that the provision of Regulation 31 read with Section 16G (1) of the Act make it clear that in case of Class-IV employees, prior approval of Inspector or Regional Inspectress is necessary. This case has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court.
11. In view of the decisions cited above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of termination of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner may make a representation before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, in respect of retiral benefits. The representation shall be decided by respondent No. 1 within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law by a speaking order.