JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. As both these appeals arise from a common judgment and an order passed in Writ-A no. 11458 of 2017, they are being decided by a common judgment and order.

2. Special Appeal Defective No. 538 of 2022 (Regular No. 716 of 2022) has been preferred by the Committee of Management of Muslim Inter College, Thakurdwar, which is a minority institution, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.7.2022 in Writ-A No. 11458 of 2017. After we had heard the aforesaid appeal, another Special Appeal Defective no. 547 of 2022 (Regular No. 715 of 2022) was preferred against the same order by the State of U.P. As we had already entertained the earlier appeal and had reserved our orders, the learned Standing Counsel who appeared in the subsequent appeal requested us to decide the subsequent appeal along with first appeal by adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the Management in the earlier appeal. As a result whereof, we condoned the delay in filing of the subsequent appeal and reserved our orders on 17.11.2022. Now both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment and order.

3. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts and the issues raised in Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022 by treating it as the lead appeal. To avoid confusion respondent no.4 on whose petition, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge is being referred to as the writ petitioner.

4. In a nutshell the facts giving rise to the two appeals are as follows:-

5. The writ petitioner (Naeem Ahmad) was appointed as Principal of the Institution, of which the appellant claims to be the Management Committee, on 22.12.2008. According to the writ petitioner, the Management was not happy with the appointment of the writ petitioner and, therefore, they started interfering in the functioning of the writ petitioner. In that regard, Writ-A No. 63186 of 2008 was filed which came to be dismissed as infructuous on 09.4.2014 as, by then, by a resolution dated 9.03.2009 the Committee of Management resolved to terminate the services of the writ petitioner. Against the said resolution, the writ petitioner filed Writ A No. 18010 of 2009, which came to be allowed by order dated 25.5.2009 with liberty to the Committee of Management to take action as per the provisions of Chapter III Regulations 35-37 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short 1921 Act'). Consequent to the order passed in Writ A No. 18010 of 2009, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. A notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 21.09.2015 seeking his explanation on certain acts and omission committed by him. On 29.09.2015 the appellants placed the writ petitioner under suspension. A reply was submitted by the writ petitioner, thereafter on 03.10.2015 a two member inquiry committee was constituted to investigate the complaint filed against him on 18.09.2015. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 06.10.2015 denying the allegation made in the said complaint. On 06.10.2015 a five member committee was constituted in place of two member inquiry committee. A charge sheet was served upon the writ petitioner on 14.10.2015. It is claimed by the writ petitioner that on 05.11.2015 the five member inquiry committee submitted the inquiry report to the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad holding all the charges proved behind his back, without associating him.

6. A show cause notice was also issued on 19.11.2015 requiring the writ petitioner to submit his reply and be present on 26.11.2015 for personal hearing. According to writ petitioner due to certain unavoidable circumstances he could not appear to submit his reply to the show cause notice/inquiry report and thereafter, on account of death of his father, took fifteen days further time to submit reply. On 25.01.2016 the suspension of the writ petitioner was approved by DIOS, Moradabad. Challenging the order dated 29.09.2015 placing the writ petitioner under suspension and the