JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Samarath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order 25.10.2009 passed by the Manager of the committee of Management of the institution (annexure 29 to the writ petition).

2. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the resolution dated 25.10.2009 passed by the respondent no. 4 the committee of Management of the institution.

3. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 6 the Enquiry Committee.

4. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher “Tahtaniya” in Madarsa Darul Uloom Faize Mohammadi, Hathiagarh, District Maharajganj and further pay the salary of the petitioner regularly and continuously on due dates.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Tahtaniya) in the institution named as Darul Uloom Faiz-E Mohammadi, Hathiagarh Laxmipur, District Maharajganj vide appointment letter dated 28.03.2004 issued by the Committee of Management of the Institution, the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved over the intimation by the competent authority. The petitioner sought leave at the behest of some family function which was going to be held in respect of marriage of his sister's daughter but the same has been denied by the then Principal which culminated into a dispute between the petitioner and the Principal of the Institution, thereafter from 12.11.2008, the petitioner has been mentioned in the attendance register as absent.

4. At the time of formalities which have been conducted by the respondent no. 3 with regard to release of salary in respect of each and every employees of the Institution, the same has been inquired with regard to the long absence of the petitioner and only thereafter the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution dated 25.01.2009 proposing the suspension of the petitioner in contemplation of the inquiry and the order of suspension was passed vide order dated 04.02.2009.

5. Having been aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 04.02.2009, the petitioner preferred a representation on 07.02.2009 before the respondent no. 4 for revocation of his suspension. Considering the claim in shape of representation, the respondent no. 4 considered the period as casual leave, the petitioner again preferred an application dated 24.02.2009 before the respondent no. 2 for taking suitable action and requested to transfer the petitioner to some other institution.

6. On dated 26.02.2009, an Inquiry Committee comprising of three Members issued a charge-sheet, whereupon the petitioner submitted his reply on dated 02.03.2009, while filing the reply, certain charges have been levelled against the Principal of the Institution by the petitioner and the same has been addressed to the respondent no. 2 which was taken up for consideration and the Principal alongwith the petitioner has been given opportunity to appear before the respondent no. 2 on dated 17.03.2009 for their contentions and allegations put forward by both of them against each other, meanwhile certain more information in shape of documentary evidences have been put forward by the petitioner for substantiating the allegations as levelled upon the Principal of the Institution, due to failure of attendance, the next date was fixed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. 24.03.2009 for appearance of both the parties.

7. Being also a