The main legal point established is that termination of services must adhere to statutory rules, including proper inquiry and adherence to disciplinary procedures.

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. –

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri J.B.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

2. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is an order dated 30.09.1992, passed by Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad whereby representation dated 23.09.1991 made by the petitioner against his termination/dismissal from service has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to quash the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 07.06.1986 and the approval accorded thereto by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur by means of order dated 30.12.1986.

3. Sarvodaya Laghu Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Mahmoodpur (Sarangpur), District Sultanpur is a Junior High School recognised under the relevant provisions of law. Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the said institution by means of order dated 10.07.1976. The appointment of the petitioner was admittedly approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari by means of an order dated 30.09.1983. The said order approving appointment of the petitioner as Clerk in the Institution dated 30.09.1983 is part of the record produced by the learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sultanpur before the Court today. The said order dated 30.09.1983 clearly indicates that appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk was approved.

4. While serving the institution, petitioner was placed under suspension by the Committee of Management of the Institution by means of order dated 19.08.1985. The aforesaid order of suspension dated 19.08.1985 states that petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge of his indignified behaviour with the Principal and also on the charge of abusing and misbehaving with the Principal physically. The said order dated 19.08.1985 itself reveals that on one hand petitioner was placed under suspension and on the other hand he was also required to submit his explanation. Merely a month after petitioner was placed under suspension, he was issued a letter dated 19.09.1985 by the Principal of the institution informing him that Manager of the Institution has restrained him from marking his attendance on the attendance register. Petitioner appears to have submitted his reply which was received on 20.10.1985 stating therein that in fact it is the Principal who misbehaved with the petitioner on account of certain arguments which took place between the petitioner and Principal on the issue of preparation of certain records pertaining to the fee register etc.

5. It appears that Manager of the Institution wrote another letter dated 05.11.1985 to the petitioner intimating him that he has been absent from the institution with effect from 20.09.1985 till 05.11.1985 and further that he has taken away a sum of L 3,500/- belonging to the Institution with him. Through the said letter it was directed that petitioner should refund back the money to the Manager of the Institution, failing which it would be deemed that petitioner is not desirous of serving the institution and in that eventuality services of the petitioner would stand terminated automatically. Petitioner appears to have submitted his reply on 19.11.1985 to the Manager of the Institution stating therein that neither has he been absent from the Institution nor has he ever denied to serve the Institution. He also stated in the said letter/reply dated 19.11.1985 that he has not taken away the amount as stated in the letter dated 05.11.1985. Petitioner prayed that he be paid his salary accordingly.

6. After certain correspondence, it appears that through letter dated 07.06.1986 approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari for terminating the services of the petitioner was sought. The said letter dated 07.06.1986 is available on record produced by the learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The said letter dated 07.06.1986 is being reproduced herein below: