The court emphasized the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the facts and circumstances of each case before imposing a penalty, and held that the charges must be substantiated to warrant disciplinary action.

( 1 ) HEARD Shri Akhileshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar, additional Standing Counsel for respondents.

( 2 ) PETITIONER was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (T. G. T. , S. U. P. W.) on 18. 6. 1998 in Air force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad, managed by Indian Air Force Education and Cultural society a non-profit making welfare institution registered under Societies Act, 1860. After completing probationary period of one year petitioner was confirmed in September, 1994. It is alleged by petitioner that by various Government Orders and policy laid down by Central Board of Secondary Education, the School fees of children of teaching staff was not to be charged. By letter dated 3. 9. 1997, respondents started realizing fee on which petitioner made protest vide representation dated 10. 9. 1997 and 6. 11. 1997, and requested for interview with SOA, CAS (Central Air Command ). Respondents agreed for fee concession from April, 1998, but became prejudiced against the petitioner. Pay scale of School staff was revised with effect from 1. 4. 1998. It was found that it was not in accordance with the direction of Central Board of Secondary education and thus, petitioner requestedfor clarification as to whether the revised pay scales were in accordance with U. P. Government or Government of India pattern. According to petitioner, these queries were not taken into correct perspective, and a show cause notice dated 10. 5. 1999 was issued to him by Principal of the School for disobeying the orders for taking over duties as Stationary Incharge and for failing to accept revised pay scale and also for not keeping standards of S. U. P. W. (Office Room) as required. Petitioner submitted a reply on 26th June, 1999 denying the allegations. It was stated by him in his reply that he did not flatly refuse the duties of Stationary in charge and wanted to explain the over burden put upon him and his unavoidable family reasons. In respect of accepting revised pay scale, petitioner stated that after revision, the salaries decreased, and thus, petitioner wanted a clarification about the applicability of the pay scales before signing the forms for accepting them. It was denied by the petitioner that he has disobeyed the orders of the Vice Principal or that he has abused any of the superior authorities or quarreled with any of the colleagues. He reminded that he is a disciplined employee, as he has been in N. C. C. and Post Warden in Civil Defence and that is a qualified teacher having seven years experience in K. V. Cantt, K. V. No. 3, IAFS Chakeri, Kanpur and six years experience in present School giving hundred per cent results.

( 3 ) PETITIONER was issued a second show cause notice on 28th June, 1999 by Fit. Lt. S. K. Jaiswal, principal, Air Force School, Bamrauli on 28th June, 1999 to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated on the ground that on 20th May, 1999 he violated code of conduct for teachers in which he did not represent grievances through proper channel and wrote a letter directly to the SQA HQ, CAC and copy to C. B. S. C, Delhi, AOC-IN-C-HQ-CAC, D-Edn Air HQ and CBSC Regional Officer, Allahabad and further making allegations in the letter that a plot is being manipulated to terminate his services and further that reply to the show cause notice dated 10th May, 1999 was not received. Petitioner sent his reply on 20th June, 1999 and 3rd July, 1999 denying the allegations. A charge- sheet was issued to him on 13th July, 1999.

( 4 ) PETITIONER submitted his reply to the charges on July 20, 1999, reiterating that he did not refuse to accept charge of stationery, and that he wanted to explain reasons of overloading his work and restriction of selling stationery through Schools by Government Orders. Regarding failure to accept pay scales, he submitted that he was not made aware of the pay scales, for which he made request for time. In respect of charges for violating code of conduct