Proper procedure and principles of natural justice must be followed in employment disputes, and manipulation of documents can lead to adverse legal consequences.

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Babulal Ram, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 even in the revised call.

2. By the impugned order dated 22.06.2004, the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar stayed the order of dismissal from service of the respondent No. 5 dated 25.05.2004 passed by the Principal of the respondent No. 4-Institution. The aforesaid order was passed by the D.I.O.S. Kanpur Nagar on the ground that the main ground on which the respondent No. 5 was dismissed from service, is subject matter of Criminal Case No. 74 of 2004 under Section 420 I.P.C. which is pending before the trial court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 5 was working as sweeper in the respondent No. 4-Institution. The respondent No. 5 was suspended by the Principal of the Institution on 20.02.2004. The suspension order was followed by a letter No. 4612/2003-04 dated 24.02.2004 addressed to the respondent No. 5 intimating him the fact of suspension on 20.02.2004 and that a disciplinary proceeding has been proposed against him. On the same date, i.e. on 24.02.2004, the Principal of the Institution appointed one Sri Gopal Kishan Tiwari (Lecturer) as Inquiry Officer and directed him to prepare charge-sheet and submit his inquiry report on four points, firstly indiscipline, secondly dereliction in duty, thirdly obstruction in government work and fourthly disobedience. The inquiry officer prepared a charge sheet dated 24.02.2004. The charge sheet contained an additional charge i.e. charge No. 1 making allegation that the class-V pass certificate submitted by the respondent No. 5 to obtain employment is forged. Inquiry Officer issued a letter dated 31.03.2004 upon the respondent No. 5 indicating that if the reply is not filed, matter shall be proceeded ex-parte. On the same day, by letter No. 4621/2003-04 dated 31.03.2004, the Principal sought approval of the suspension order of the respondent No. 5 from the D.I.O.S. Kanpur Nagar. The respondent No. 5 submitted a letter dated 13.05.2004 before the Inquiry Officer, as under:

^^lsok esa]

Jh xksiky d`".k frokjh ¼ÁoDrk½

okf.kT; tkap vf/kdkjh]

ghjkyky [kUuk b.Vj dkyst]

dkuiqjA

fo"k; %& i= fnukad 11-05-2014 ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

mDr ls lEcfU/kr esjs i= fnukad 25-04-2004 dk voyksdu gh lehphu gSA esjs Lrj ls tkap dk;Zokgh esa dHkh dksbZ f'kfFkyrk ugha cjrh xbZ gSA

eSa lnSo yxu o esgur ls fo|ky; dk dk;Z djus ij jgrk gawA Hkfo"; esa Hkh rRij jgawxk vius le{k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds Áfr ,oa xq: th ds Áfr lnSo eSus vknj Hkko j[kk gSA vki Lo;a ofj"Bre f'k{kd gS rFkk fdlh Hkh xq:tu ls esjs Áfr dHkh Hkh vkius dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha lquh gksxhA fdlh Hkh =qfV ij Jheku th Á/kkukpk;Z th ds vykok vki lHkh dh MkaV QVdkj gh gekjs fy;s Ásj.kk L=ksr jgrh gSA

Jheku esjs ifjokj dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k dk lk/ku ,dek= esjh ukSdjh gSA iRuh lfgr pkj ukcfyx yM+fd;ksa dk nkf;Ro esjs Åij gSA foxr nks eghus ls vk/kk osru feyus ls vkSj muesa dVkSfr;ka gks tkus ls esjk ifjokj vkfFkZd Hkw[kejh ls tw> jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eq>s Losru okgu djkdj U;k; Ánku djkus dh d`ik djsaA

;fn esjs O;ogkj ls vutkus esa fdlh Áfr"Bku esa dksbZ vkap vkbZ gks rks mlds Áfr eSa vknj Hkko j[krs gq,] Ák;f'pr djrk gawA

lknj vkHkkjA

fnukad 13-05-2004

ÁkFkhZ

gLrk{kj viBuh;

¼jkds'k dqekj½

lQkbZ deZpkjh

ghjkyky [kUuk b.Vj dkyst] dkuiqj

Áfrfyfi Ásf"kr

1- Jheku Á/kkukpk;Z] ghjkyky [kUuk b.Vj dkyst] dkuiqjA

2- Jheku ÁcU/kd th] ghjkyky [kUuk b.Vj dkyst] dkuiqjA

3- Jheku ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] dkuiqj uxjA**

4. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 22.05.2004 in which he found all the five charges to be proved against the respondent No. 5. Just after three days after the inquiry report, the Principal of the Institution passed an order dated 25.05.2004 dismissing the respondent No. 5 from service. Before passing the order of dismissal from service, Principal (Disciplinary Authority)