JUDGMENT

H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against the orders of the respondents removing the petitioner from service.

2. The facts are these.

3. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary School, Kapkot, district Almora, in July, 1954. On 12th July, 1962, a charge shoot was submitted to him by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the school alleging that he had allowed students to copy in the examination and had incited some of them to beat another teacher of the school. Petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, under the direction of the Manager, an enquiry was held by the Principal who reported that the allegations made against the petitioner contained elements of truth. On receipt of the report from the Principal, the Committee considered the case of the petitioner and recommended to the District Inspector of Schools to grant permission to dismiss him. The District Inspector of Schools issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner showed cause and asked that the statements of witnesses be taken in his presence and he may be given opportunity to cross-examine them. He was allowed to cross-examine some of the witnesses. Thereafter, the Inspector permitted the Managing Committee to dismiss the petitioner and the petitioner was, accordingly, dismissed by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated, 2nd February, 1963. Petitioner filed an appeal which was considered by the Regional Appellate Committee which passed its order dated December 13, 1968, dismissing the appeal; hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised- two points in support of his writ petition. It is urged that the Regional Appellate Committee did not fix the date of hearing in the presence of the petitioner, that it decided the petitioner's appeal without giving him an opportunity to be heard and thus not only contravened the principles of natural justice, but also the regulations 90 and 94 framed under the Intermediate Education Act. The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the enquiry against the petitioner has not been conducted in accordance with the Regulations contained in the Intermediate Education Act and the principles of natural justice have been violated. As I am satisfied on the first point that the Regional. Appellate Committee was not justified in deciding the appeal without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, it is not necessary for me to give any finding on the second point.

5. Regulations 90 and 94, which are relevant to the question in controversy, read as follows :-

"90. The President shall fix dates for hearing of the appeal and he may change the dates or adjourn the hearing from time to time :

Provided that whenever a date is fixed in the absence of any party at least one week's notice shall be given to that party unless otherwise agreed upon by both the parties :

Provided further that no such notice to a party shall be necessary when the date is fixed on a date of hearing and the party is absent in spite of notice of that date.

94. The Regional appellate Committee may hear and decide an appeal ex parte, if any party, in spite of notice, fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing."

6. A bare reading of these two Regulations makes it evident that the Regional Appellate Committee must fix the date of the hearing in the presence of the parties and if it does so in its absence, it must give them at least one week's notice of that date.

7. The fact that the date has to be fixed in the presence of the parties or one week's notice of the date is to be given to them suggests that the appeal is to be heard in their presence and the parties are to be heard in support of their contentions. The fact that the Regional Appellate Committee is entitled to hear an appeal ex parte only if any party in spite of notice fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing again indicates that if the party is present, it must be heard.

8. In the petition, it