Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri M.D.Singh Shekhar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh Upadhaya for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Y.K.Saxena for respondent No. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties has been exchanged.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.4.2008 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby he has granted approval to the proposal dated 5.6.2007 of the Committee of Management of Chaudhary Jawahar Singh Inter College Sutiyani, District Etawah proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the institution. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 24.3.2009 (annexure 18 to the writ petition) whereby the appellate authority has affirmed the orders and rejected the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar has pointed out to various paragraphs of the writ petition to indicate the proceedings taken up by the parties before this Court at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings/appeal. He has submitted that lastly in Writ Petition No. 56451 of 2008 this Court issued specific directions on 12.11.2008 to the Regional Joint Director of Education (Secondary) Kanpur Region, Kanpur for deciding the appeal by especially adverting to three points framed by the writ Court. He submits that neither of the three points have been considered by the appellate authority while passing the impugned appellate order dated 24.3.2009.

4. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar has submitted that in so far as the first point of consideration by the appellate authority is concerned the same was as to whether the enquiry conducted by the managing committee was free and proper or not and the principles of natural justice were complied with or not. While referring to the records of this writ petition he states that last notice for the petitioner to receive the charge-sheet within three days was published in the news-papers on 23.5.2007. According to the petitioner he approached the authority on 25.5.2007 with an application. He states that the enquiry report was given on 27.5.2007 i.e. within four days of the publication of notice to show-cause in the newspapers. In support of his argument he has relied upon Regulation 36 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act.

5. Sri Singh submits that in so far as the second point to which the appellate authority was to advert was as to whether the charges levelled against Sri Karan Singh Yadav (petitioner) were substantiated with evidence on which reliance has been placed by disciplinary authority or not. On this point he has argued that the evidence which was required to be considered on behalf of the petitioner was never considered because of violation of the first point framed by the writ Court.

6. Sri Y.K. Saxena learned counsel for the contesting respondent has disputed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. For determining the point No. 1 framed by the writ Court Sri Saxena submits that the first notice was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 7.5.2007 and therefore a clear opportunity of three weeks as provided under Regulation 36 was given to the petitioner and when he did not participate the enquiry report was submitted on 27.5.2007 which is a clear compliance of the mandated period of three weeks. He submits that subsequent publication of notice on 23.5.2007 in the news-papers cannot be taken as the date from which the period of three weeks would run as required under Regulation 36.

7. On the second point Sri Saxena has submitted that the evidence available with the enquiry officer clearly substantiated the charges against him and when the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry the enquiry officer has considered the evidence, held the enquiry and given his enquiry report. He states th