JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State and Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.5.2009 passed by opposite party no.2 with further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned and further to grant approval for the dismissal of service of the opposite party no.3 in pursuance to the resolution of the petitioner dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure No.18 to the writ petition).

3. Facts of the case are that the Management Committee National Inter College, Fatehpur, Barabanki (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which manages and runs National Inter College, Fatehpur, Barabanki through its Committee of Management to be elected as per the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as the approved scheme of administration. The college is a recognized aided institution.

The opposite party no.3 was working as Assistant Clerk in the National Inter College, Fatehpur, Barabanki (hereinafter referred to as 'College'), who was assigned the charge of Library of the College. On 24.1.2007, the opposite party no.3 was suspended by the petitioner in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of several charges of very serious nature. The order of suspension was sent to the opposite party no.2 for his approval vide letter dated 24.2.2007. The Manager of the College was also appointed as the enquiry officer for conducting the inquiry against the opposite party no.3 vide resolution of the petitioner dated 24.01.2007 itself.

Thereafter, on 14.3.2007, the opposite party no.2 had approved the order of suspension of the opposite party no.3. In the meantime, the enquiry officer had served the charge-sheet dated 9.2.2007 containing seven serious charges along with all the relevant material on the opposite party no.3 which was earlier refused to be received by the opposite party no.3 personally and had asked him to submit his reply to the charge-sheet within the time stipulated in the same.

Despite service of the charge-sheet, the opposite party no.3 did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet within the stipulated time. The enquiry officer again by means of several letters and reminders including dated 14.2.07, 17.2.07, 21.02.07, 05.03.07 and 14.03.07 asked the opposite party no.3 to submit his reply to the charge-sheet and also requested him to participate in the enquiry fixing date and time in the said letters and reminders for holding the enquiry and had also specifically asked the opposite party no.3 to be present before him on the specified date and time and if he wants any document or examine any record he may do so on the specified date and time.

In spite of several letters and reminders, the opposite party no.3 did not submit any reply to the charge sheet nor he ever appeared before the enquiry officer on the date and time so specified in the said letters and reminders but he had been prolonging the enquiry by adopting the dilatory tactics and writing letters in this regard.

Thereafter, the enquiry officer having left with no other option had concluded the enquiry ex-parte and submitted its report to the petitioner on 16.04.2007 in which all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved on the basis of evidence and material on record.

On 17.4.2007, the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice to the opposite party no.3 along with the enquiry report asking him to submit any reply or representation to the charge-sheet or to the enquiry report, if any, as a last opportunity. In reply to the said notice, the opposite party no.3 submitted a letter demanding certain documents, though all the material referred to in the charge-sheet was alre