IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures, including notice and opportunity to defend, to ensure compliance with natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Sri Shivendra Rajwar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fifth respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order of termination of her services dated 17.9.2018 and the basic plea taken is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was continuing in substantive appointment in the institution as Principal, she was never served at any point of time either with any suspension order, the charge-sheet or was permitted to participate in the alleged enquiry conducted by respondent-Committee of Management. She was even not served with any show-cause notice as to the proposed punishment, nor was given any enquiry report. These pleadings have come to be raised in paragraph-24 of the writ petition to which reply has come to be made in paragraph-23 of the counter-affidavit filed by fifth respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority in the matter. Thus according to learned counsel for the petitioner, enquiry being de hors the procedure prescribed under Regulation 37 of Chapter XXXIII of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, the Intermediate Act, 1921''), the order of termination of services of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.

3. Sri Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fifth respondent has sought to justify the order for the reasons assigned therein and has further taken the plea by way of defence set up in paragraphs-8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit. He also submitted that reply to the pleadings raised in paragraph-24 of the writ petition, has been given in paragraph-23 of the counter-affidavit.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has taken his stand that the management was required to furnish detail report to the petitioner regarding the proceedings being drawn against her but the management being a minority institution choosen not to take the same. He submits that in the absence of any paper being submitted before the Education Authority, he could neither approve the order of termination, nor could he say anything in the matter. However, he submits that from the recital made in the order of termination, it is clear as is stated in the said order that the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry committee but there is no material discussed as to when she was offered opportunity to appear and she refused to appear. In the circumstances, he says that the principles of natural justices, appears to have not been complied with in the matter of imposition of major penalty.

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. I find that specific pleadings have been raised in paragrap-24 of the writ petition with regard to the fact that neither the order of suspension nor charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner. She was not even served with the enquiry report and straightway the order of termination has been passed. Paragraph-24 of the writ petition is reproduced hereunder :

''24. That virtually the suspension order dated 7.8.2018 was not served on the petitioner and firstly only informed by the Peon of the College, that you are suspended and not permitted to enter into the College then the petitioner attended the hearing made by D.I.O.S. dated 6.9.2018 and 17.9.2018, and lastly on 17.9.2018 it was communicated on behalf of respondent No. 5 to the D.I.O.S. since the petitioner has been terminated hence the hearing on her suspension is not required; and as both the said papers i.e. Suspension and Termination were nor communicated to the petitioner hence knowing the correct facts she obtained the completed papers relating to the present matter in dispute form the D.I.O.S. under R.T.I. Act on 3.12.2018 and from the perusal of such papers the following fact came in the light-

(i) Neither the Suspension was communicated to the petitioner nor properly