JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. On the application for special leave to appeal notice was issued by this Court on the respondents indicating therein that the said application for special leave to appeal will be disposed of finally at the notice stage itself on the short question as to why the disciplinary proceedings and the order passed therein should not be set aside and a fresh enquiry should be ordered on the ground that one of the participants of the Enquiry Committee was biased. Such notice was served on the respondents and the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 have entered appearance through a learned Counsel and also filed counter-affidavit to the special leave petition.

3. The appellant was appointed as Principal of Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School, Datarpur in Tehsil of Dasuya in the District of Hoshiarpur. He was placed under suspension by the Managing Committee of the said School and charge-sheet containing 12 charges was issued to the appellant. Charge No. 12 was to the following effect:

"the following amounts are reported to have been used by you and are unaccounted for:

A sum of Rs. 129.37 on account of amalgamated fund for the month of December, 1969 given to you by Shri Maru Ram teacher in charge, amalgamated fund."

4. The school authorities appointed an Enquiry Committee consisting of three members of which the said Shri Maru Ram was one of the members. It is an admitted position that the said Shri Maru Ram appeared as a witness in support of charge No. 12 on behalf of administration in the said enquiry proceedings. The appellant raised an objection for inclusion of the said Shri Maru Ram in the Enquiry Committee but the said objection of the appellant was overruled by the Enquiry Committee inter alia on the ground that -

"Similarly your objection to the appointment of Shri Maru Ram in the Enquiry Committee is ill-conceived, unfounded, unjustified and invalid because Shri Maru Ram is as good a member of the Managing Committee as any one else and as such as member is entitled to act on any sub-committee formed by the Managing Committee and even perhaps more in this case because to give you a fair trial, it was necessary to have a teachers unions representative on the Enquiry Committee. Shri Maru Ram represented the Union of the staff of the school and is thus your own representative as such."

There is no dispute of the fact that the said Shri Maru Ram himself deposed in the enquiry proceedings in support of Charge No. 12 against the appellant and he also participated as one of the members of the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee found the appellant guilty on some of the charges including the said charge No. 12. The Managing Committee proposed to dismiss the appellant from service. It is not disputed that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Aided (Schools Security of Service) Act, 1969. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act is set out hereunder:-

"No order of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank of an employee shall take effect unless it has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner who may refuse to do so, if in his opinion, the provisions of subsection (1) have not been complied with."

5. In view of such provision in the aforesaid Act. the report of the Managing Committee and the proposal for dismissal of the appellant from service were sent for confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant being informed of the decision of the Managing Committee to dismiss him from service subject to the confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, made an application to the President of the Managing Committee for the inspection of the stipend register and the office file of the case oil December 29, 1970 so that he could make a proper representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Hoshiarpur. The Managing Committee, however, did not give inspection to