The Commission's approval of the termination of the petitioner's services was quashed due to the violation of natural justice principles in the disciplinary proceedings and the separate hearings of the management and the petitioner.

Petitioner Awadh Narain Tripathi was appointed as permanent lecturer in Sri Nehru Inter College, Othersiya, Etawah on 30-8-1974. In a mishap in the year 1985, Sri Ram Autar Tripathi, the confirmed Principal of the College sustained acid burns allegedly impairing his vision. White he was undergoing treatment, the petitioner supplanted him as officiat ing Principal and his signatures as such are said to have been attested too by the District Inspector of Schools on 19-9-1985.

2. As alleged in the petition, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 15-3-1989, as officiating Principal of the College and served with a charge sheet on 17-4-1989. From a perusal of the record, it would transpire that the petitioner was taxed with the charges of: (1) unauthorised absence from duty from 26-12-1988 to 17-3-1989; (ii) Removal of certain records from the College ; (iii) Avoidance to receive postal communications/ letters from the Manager and thereby causing obstructions in the administra tion of the affairs of the institution ; (iv) attempt to take charge as officiating principal by falsifying documents exhibiting disability on the part of the permanent principal; and (v) Unauthorised operation of development funds account of the College and non-submission of statement of account thereof.

3. It transpires from a perusal of the period of the record that the disciplinary proceedings proceeded ex parte and climaxed with the guilt brought home to the petitioner as per inquiry report dated 6-10-1989. The Enquiry Sub-Committee climaxed its report dated 6-10-1989 with the findings that the petitioner was guilty of aforestated charges. The sub-committee, however, oscillated to indict the petitioner on the count of misappropriation of Rs. 4,000 out of the development funds in the absence of any evidence.

4. By means of resolution dated 27-10-1989, the Committee of Manage ment headed by Sri R. K. Chaturvedi resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner, Papers were transmitted to the Secondary Education Services Commission in short the Commission) for approval under Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 which stimulated the Commission to issue a show cause notice served on the petitioner on 10-2-1991. The petitioner submitted his written reply dated 11-3-1991. A single member sub-committee of the Commission heard separately the repre sentative of the Management on 5-6-1991 and the petitioner on 6-6-1991. The single member sub-committee of the Commission concurred with the report submitted by the Enquiry sub-committee and the Commission in its meeting dated 5-7-1991 approved the managements proposal to terminate the petitioners services.

5. The Commission in its meeting held on 3-7-1991 gave imprimatur to the resolution of the committee of management for termination of peti tioners services and the decision so taken was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25-7-1991, which has been impugned in this petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the charges against the petitioner were non existent and that entire enquiry proceeding was violative of regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter HI of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and natural justice and that the committee of management which passed the resolution for terminating the petitioners cervices lacked in validity and the dispute in respect thereof having been referred by the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section J 6-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the latter had vide letter dated 16-1-1989 clearly directed that no faction should be recognised during the pendency of the dispute and therefore, proceeded the submission of the learned counsel, the enquiry as well as decision taken by the committee were liable to be discount ed. Indubitably the dispute as to validity of the committee of