IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that employees have a right to receive the enquiry report and participate in the enquiry, which are essential for a fair disciplinary process.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner who was duly appointed and working in institution as Class IV employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 26.12.2012 leveling as many as six charges to which petitioner did submitted reply on 10.7.2013. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee on 29.6.2013 and, thereafter, it appears that Committee of Management proceeded to adopt resolution considering the enquiry report and possible action on that basis. In its resolution adopted by the Committee of Management on 28.7.2013, it accepted the enquiry report and on the basis of findings returned by the Enquiry Committee, proceeded to resolve to dispense with his services by way of punishment and so the consequential order came to be issued by the Manager of the Institution on 21.7.2013. Papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools who disapproved the action of Committee of Management on the ground that the powers to dispense with the services of the petitioner as prescribed under Regulation 31 of chapter III of Intermediate Education Act lay with the Principal of the institution, petitioner being a Class IV employee and only appeal could be preferred before the Committee of Management and therefore, Committee of Management acceded in its authority in passing the order of termination of service of the petitioner.

3. The Committee of Management challenged the order before this Court vide Writ A No. 54458 of 2013 which though was entertained but it was directed that the petitioner shall be paid salary, however left it to the discretion of the Management to take work from the present petitioner who was respondent No. 4 in that petition. This petition subsequently came to be dismissed for want of prosecution and so the challenge to the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 24.9.2013 came to an end.

4. It is argued that while petitioner was getting payment of salary in terms of the order passed by this Court, the Principal of the institution on his own proceeded even during pendency of the said writ petition to pass order on 21.10.2013 dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of the enquiry report. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court.

5. Assailing the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that:

(A) The District Inspector of Schools proceeded to pass order without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner and also without supplying the enquiry report so as to enable him to furnish his explanation against the Enquiry Committee's findings.

(B) The entire Enquiry Committee was illegally constituted as the son of the Manager of the Committee of Management was made one of the members of the Enquiry Committee and other member was Clerk of the institution himself who has leveled allegations upon which charge No. 4 was based.

6. Thus in view of the above two grounds, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Principal of the Institution is clearly unsustainable.

7. Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel though has sought to defend the order on the score of first argument regarding opportunity by way of show-cause notice by taking the Court to Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit which is a photocopy of the envelope which bears the postman's remarks that the recipient refused to accept the registered letter. This registered letter is addressed to Pramod Kumar Paswan who is petitioner in the present case. It is stated to have been sent by registered post on 11.10.2018 containing the show-cause notice. However, no copy of the show-cause notice has been annexed so as to demonstrate that the letter did contain the show-cause notice and that copy thereof c