Hon’ble V.K. Dixit, J.—This Special Appeal is arising out of the Judgement & Order dated 11.1.2012 passed by learned Single Judge by which the Review Application (Defective) No. 247 of 2011 (Committee of Management, Jan Sansthan Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyapeeth Inter College, through its Manager and another v. Survesh Kumar and others) has been dismissed and Judgment & order dated 4.7.2011 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the Writ Petition No. 649 (S/S) of 2009 (Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) has been allowed and the impugned order dated 9.7.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service passed by Principal, Sansthan Uchchatar Madhyamic Vidyapeeth Inter College, Digambar pur, Mubarakganj, Faizabad (Appellant No. 2) and order of District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad dated 5.12.2008, granting the subsequent approval to the impugned order dated 9.7.2008 under the provisions of Regulation 31, Chapter-III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 have been quashed.

2. Heard Sri Chandra Bhusahn Pandey, learned Counsel for appellants, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Manish Kumar for contesting respondent No. 1 and perused the impugned judgment and orders dated 4.7.2011 and 11.1.2012 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed alongwith it.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and rejected the review application without considering the facts and law in its entirety and thus the order of learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, there is absolutely no requirement for conducting full-fledged departmental inquiry in a case where the delinquent employee has absconded and is not participating in the enquiry deliberately despite reasonable and genuine efforts on part of the employer to make him participate. Further on account of non-cooperation on the part of the private respondent, there was no occasion for the appellants to have conducted a full-fledged inquiry in the matter. That the entire scheme of the regulations, in so far as it relates to Class-IV employees makes it abundantly clear that prior approval is not mandatory before terminating the service where subsequently, the competent authority has accorded approval to the dismissal order. In support of such contention, he has relied upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Rishikesh Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9) ADJ 361 (FB).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent, refuting the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the judgment and order dated 4.7.2011 under challenge passed by learned Single Judge has not been passed merely on the point that there was no prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) but also on the ground that the impugned dismissal order dated 9.7.2008 has been passed without holding any enquiry and without serving any charge-sheet in utter violation of Principles of natural justice is wholly arbitrary and illegal and also against the provisions of Sections 31, 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III and Section 16 (G) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

5. We have considered the arguments aforesaid and we find that in order to appreciate the rival contentions we have to consider only the following two points:

(i) whether for awarding a punishment in respect of a Class IV employee prior approval of D.I.O.S. is essential?

(ii) Whether the impugned order dated 9.7.2008 for dismissal has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and thus in violation of the principles of natural justice?

6. Learned Single Judge while dealing both the issues has made the following observation:

“on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the present case and th