Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—Heard Sri Y.K. Saxena for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting respondents.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 23.7.2009 in terms of which a decision taken by the respondent on 18th May, 2008 to dismiss the petitioner has been reiterated. The impugned order itself came to be passed pursuant to an order of this Court made on 9.7.2008 allowing Writ Petition No. 32241 of 2008 (Shyam Babu Savita v. State of U.P. and another). By the aforesaid order of this Court, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner had been allowed and the impugned order of dismissal dated 18th May,2008 quashed. This Court while remanding the matter back to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari permitted him to decide the matter afresh after giving proper and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this writ petition are as follows. On 18th May, 2008, the petitioner who was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and was promoted as Headmaster in the year 1995, was dismissed from service. As is recorded in the said order, the order of dismissal came to be passed on account of the allegation that the petitioner was found in an inebriated state in the precincts of the School and the respondent formed the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner had clearly brought disrepute to the Department and the Institution concerned. By the time, this order had came to be passed, the petitioner had already completed 39 years of service and was working as the Headmaster of the Institution in question. It is further evident from a reading of the order dated 18th May, 2008 that consequent to the alleged misdemeanor committed by the petitioner coming to light, he was suspended on 7th May, 2008 and consequent to a report dated 18th May, 2008 being submitted by a three-member Committee his services were dispensed with by an order of even date.

3. It was aggrieved by the aforesaid order that the petitioner approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 32241 of 2008. This Court after hearing the parties noticed that the order of dismissal had come to be passed without the petitioner being afforded any opportunity of hearing. In view of the above undisputed position which emerged before this Court, it, by its judgment and order dated 9.7.2008, allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back with directions as noticed hereinabove.

4. Picking up the thread post the order of this Court dated 9.7.2008, it appears from the record that the petitioner submitted Affidavits of various persons as well as his own representation for the consideration of the respondents. In his representation, the petitioner contended that the entire incident has been stage-managed and that certain persons who wanted to set him up, blackmailed him and made a concocted C.D. and also took pictures of him to prove that he had voluntarily consumed alcohol in the precincts of the Institution and was thus found to be in a state of intoxication. In terms of the Affidavits, the petitioner stated on oath that certain unscrupulous elements mixed something in a cold drink offered to him and thereafter took photographs and resorted to blackmail.

5. Consequent to the said representations and Affidavits being filed (and as is recorded in the impugned order), a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the authorities on 29.9.2008. The impugned order further records that subsequent to the order of this Court and in order to ascertain facts in respect of the said incident yet again another three-member Committee was constituted by an order dated 11.8.2008. It proceeds to record that the aforesaid Committee was re-constituted on 12.12.2008 and that this Committee subsequently submitted a report on 4th July, 2009 indicting the petitioner yet again.

6. Accepting the aforesaid report and as a consequence of the conclusions/