The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, proper constitution of enquiry committees, and the need to establish charges to support disciplinary actions.

Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate assisted by Sri V. K. Singh for petitioner and Sri A. P. Srivastava for respondents.

2. This writ petition was nominated for hearing to this Court by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 7.11.2001. After exchange of counter and rejoinder-affidavits between 24.4.2003 to 14.5.2004, when the writ petition was finally heard, the matter was adjourned almost for eighteen dates to enable senior counsel, for the respondents to address the Court. He, however, did not choose to appear even on the date of hearing and thus the Court proceeded to hear Sri A. P. Srivastava for the respondents.

3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.9.2001, passed by Committee of Management and the order of same date issued by the Manager, D. B. Santokh Singh Khalsa Inter College Partab Pura Agra (hereinafter referred to as the college) and for quashing the entire proceedings including the resolution dated 2.9.2001, claimed to have been passed by Committee of Management of the college, to permit petitioner to function as Principal of the college and to pay his regular salary.

4. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the college is a minority institution run and managed by Sikh Minority Community, and consequently the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are not applicable to the institution. The institution is receiving grant-in-aid up to high school level and is governed by provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and

Other Employees) Act, 1971, and is recognised up to the Intermediate level.

5. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the college on 1.1.1975. By the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Agra dated 31.8.1977, the petitioner was sanctioned L.T. grade with effect from 1.11.1975. The Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 18.4.1993 appointed the petitioner as officiating Principal on the resignation of the outgoing Principal. The District Inspector of Schools, Agra, attested petitioners’ signature as officiating Principal on 21.7.1993. Thereafter selection proceedings were held by the Committee of Management and that the petitioner was selected by the Committee as the best suitable candidate for appointment and was given regular and permanent appointment as Principal of the college, on 5.7.1995, which received approval of the Deputy Director of Education, Agra.

6. The Management of the institution suspended petitioner on 24.9.2000. The suspension order was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra under Section 16G (7) of the U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921. The suspension order lapsed on the expiry of 60 days from 25.9.2000. Instead of reinstating petitioner the Manager passed repeated suspension orders dated 26.11.2000, 27.1.2001 and on 22.4.2001. A three member enquiry sub-committee was appointed on 21.10.2000. A charge-sheet dated 21.11.2000 was issued to the petitioner levelling several allegations with regard to financial irregularities and embezzlement. The petitioner filed his representation on 28.11.2000 before the enquiry committee for supplying original and legible documents as most of the documents with the charge-sheet were not legible. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was permitted to make inspection of some of the documents on 8.12.2000 and thereafter having no option in the matter he submitted his reply on 20.12.2000 on the basis of inspections on the limited number of documents permitted to him. Some more documents were given on 5.1.2001 and the inspection was permitted on 12.1.2001. An additional charge-sheet was issued on 6.4.2001. The petitioner again made a request on 6.4.2001 for inspection of documents and was not permitted for inspection nor was given a copy of these documents. He was compelled to give reply dated 1.