JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on 18.11.76 as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in Ram Pyari Arya Kanya Inter College, Moradabad (in brief Institution). On '5.10.1991 she made a complaint to the principal that progress report and transfer certificates reveal that four students had obtained fictitious certificates that they passed XI class examination from the institution, though they were not students of the institution. It was alleged that these forged certificates were prepared by connivance of teaching and non-teaching staff. Out of the four students, name of Km. Chhabi, daughter of another teacher Smt. Savita Rastog! was also mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner also attached progress report and transfer certificate of Km. Chhabi along with her complaint. On 10.10.91. a fight took place in the Institution between the petitioner and Smt. Savita Rastogl. The petitioner lodged a F.I.R. on 10.10.91. The management, by resolution dated 14.10.91. suspended the petitioner. Shri D. C. Agarwal, officiating manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Charge-sheet was issued on 8.11.91. Two notices dated 6.12.91 were served fixing December 10 and 11 for inquiry. She submitted her reply on 28.11.1991. On 8.12.91 the petitioner requested that copies of statements be provided to her as the charge-sheet did not mention any witness or evidence which is to be relied against the petitioner. Request for change of inquiry officer was also made. The management gave no reply. On 21.12.91 another notice was Issued fixing 24.12.91 for inquiry. A notice dated 1.1.92 was despatched by registered post on 3.1.92 which was received by the petitioner on 8.1.92 in which 4.1.92 was fixed for the meeting. The management passed a resolution on 25.1.92 for dismissing the petitioner from service. The management sent the resolution to the Commission for obtaining prior approval as required by law. The Commission accorded its approval to the proposal of dismissal in its meeting dated 2.4.93 and the order of the Commission was communicated to the management on 24.4.93. Before the management could pass the dismissal order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by the Commission. This Court on 17.5.93 passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner and the management was restrained from dismissing the petitioner. It was further directed that she shall be continued under suspension and shall be paid subsistence allowance.
2. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. K. Gupta. learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and Shri S. P. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the resolution of the Committee of Management proposing dismissal of the petitioner from service and its approval by the Commission is illegal in view of the fact that as per regulations no proper Inquiry was done by the Inquiry Officer in the case of the petitioner and no reasons have been assigned by the Inquiry Officer for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Therefore, on the basis of such an inquiry report the petitioner could not be dismissed from service. On the other hand, Shri A- K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has supported the inquiry report and argued that it does not suffer from any infirmity. The proposal of management and approval of Commission requires no interference.
4. The inquiry report dated 16.12.91 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary rejolnder-affidavit. It is nothing but a repetition of the charges with addition of one sentence that from the statement of witnesses, the charge stands proved. The inquiry Officer has assigned no reasons nor any finding has been recorded on the basis of which the petitioner could be held guilty of the charges framed against her. The petitioner could not be dismissed from service on the basis of such an inquiry report, which was vlolatlve of principles of natural justice. The Commission acted illegally in granting approval to the proposal of the Committee of Management, which was based on the report of the Inquiry Officer.
5. A division bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 515 of 1995, Shri Dharmveer Gupta v. U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others, after considering the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act held that the Inquiry Officer has to submit the Inquiry report as per the regulations and in accordance with law. The Division Bench in special appeal quoted the following paragraphs from the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others, AIR 1985 SC 1121 :
"We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well-settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not creditworthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well-settled to be supported by precedent, in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd, v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 466 : AIR 1966 SC 671, this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 1 SCR 201 : AIR 1970 SC 1302, this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order-sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non-application of mind and it is such an enquiry, which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.
6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likelihood to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order-sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceedings disclosing non-application of mind would be unsustainable."
7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The resolution of the Commission dated 2.4.93 communicated on 24.4.93 Annexure-15 to the writ petition is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid her entire arrears of salary, after deducting the amount already paid to her, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.