JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated September 12, 1989 and October 19, 1989 Annexures 7 and 11 to the writ petition and also for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's gratuity, provident fund etc.
2. I have heard Sri R.N. Bhalla for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Singh for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was a Principal of D.B. Santosh Singh Khalsa Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pratappura, Agra. He was appointed in 1972. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition that the Management wanted to harass the teachers and wanted to get the institution declared as a minority institution. Hence the Management applied to the Government for declaring it to be a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. The teachers of the institution filed objection before the D.I.O.S. but the State Government declared the institution as a minority institution vide order dated September 12, 1989 Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
4. In paragraph 20 of the petition it is stated that the Management suspended the petitioner from the post of Principal on November 18, 1988. In paragraph 21 it is stated that his service was terminated on October 19, 1989 vide Annexure 11. It is alleged in paragraph 22 that the Management did not issue any show cause notice or charge sheet to the petitioner nor gave him opportunity of hearing. Hence this petition.
5. Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. J.K. Kalra v. R.I.G.S. 1996 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 1691, the termination of the service of the petitioner was illegal as no prior approval was obtained from the D.I. O.S.
6. In this connection it may be mentioned that it is wrongly stated in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that the petitioner's service was terminated on July 17, 1989. A perusal of the letter dated July 17, 1989 shows that it is a letter by the President/Manager, Managing Committee of the Institution to the Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission claiming for approval for the proposed punishment of dismissal of the petitioner for embezzlement, corruption, etc. This letter dated July 17, 1989 is not a letter of termination of service. It is only a letter seeking approval of the proposed termination of service. The termination of service of the petitioner was done vide order dated October 19, 1989 which was issued more than three months after the letter dated July 17, 1989.
7. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case it has been stated that the petitioner has committed heavy embezzlement and financial irregularity for which an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was found guilty and dismissal was recommended vide Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit.
8. It is true that there must be prior approval of the termination of service whereas in this case no approval order has been passed before the termination of service nor even thereafter. However, from the facts of the case it is evident that the petitioner sought approval from the Secretary of the Secondary Education Commission much before the dismissal order. It was the duty of the Commission to have passed an order on the letter of the Respondent No. 4 dated July 17, 1989 within a reasonable period either approving or disapproving the proposed punishment. The Respondent No. 5 could not have sat over the matter without deciding it. It is settled law that when no time is prescribed for an authority to do something, that authority must act within a reasonable time vide Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1995-I-LLJ-882). Since the Respondent No. 5 did not decide the application of Respondent No. 4 within a reasonable time, I am of the opinion that the Respondent No. 5 acted arbitrarily.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and since the serious allegations have been made against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by directing the Respondent No. 5 to decide the application of the Management dated July 17, 1989 copy of which is Annexure 10 to the petition within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent after hearing the parties concerned. If the Commission rejects the application of the Respondent No. 4 the termination order dated October 19, 1989 will become null and void and the petitioner will get all the benefits accordingly. However, if the said application is allowed the order dated October 19, 1989 will stand.
10. With these observations the petition is disposed of finally. Copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel for, parties within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.