Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice; failure to notify the dismissed employee of inquiry details invalidates dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.05.2007, being a communication from the Manager, Chashmai Rahmat Oriental College, Ghazipur, informing the petitioner of the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dated 06.05.2007 of the College last mentioned, dismissing him from service. Also under challenge is an order of the Registrar/ Inspector, Arabic-Persian Madrasa dated 14.07.2007, approving the resolution of the Committee of Management to dismiss the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher with the College last mentioned, from service under Rule 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Government Arabic and Persian Madrasa Recognition and Service Rules, 1987 (for short, 'the Rules of 1987'). The petitioner, through an amendment application that was allowed vide order dated 09.08.2007, has also challenged the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 06.05.2007, raising grounds for the purpose, but without incorporating a formal prayer to that effect.

2. In the circumstances, we propose to examine the validity of the impugned resolution dated 06.05.2007, notwithstanding the flaw in the form of relief.

3. It is undisputed that the Chashmai Rahmat Oriental College, Ghazipur (for short, 'the Institution') is a Madrasa, imparting instructions to scholars in Arabic and Persian languages, which is duly recognized by the State Government. It is in receipt of a maintenance grant for payment of salaries to its teachers and other employees drawn on the Exchequer.

4. The petitioner was appointed with the Institution on 20.08.1988 as an Assistant Teacher in the Tehtania Section (Primary Section) and has been working regularly ever-since. The petitioner says that his work and conduct has always been satisfactory.

5. The petitioner says that without basis, he was served with a charge-sheet by the Manager and Secretary of the Institution dated 08.04.2006. The charge-sheet carries nine charges. It appears that the petitioner resisted answering the charge-sheet, raising objections as to jurisdiction of the Manager to issue the same, but those demurrers being rejected by the Management of the Institution, a notice dated 09.12.2006 was issued by the Inquiry Officer to the petitioner, saying that he had been given sufficient time to submit his reply, which he has failed to do, and, in case he does not submit his reply on or before 13.12.2006, the Inquiry Officer would proceed ex parte.

6. The petitioner then submitted a response dated 13.12.2006, saying that he had not been given a complete copy of the charge- sheet and various other proceedings connected therewith. It was also said in the reply aforesaid that the petitioner was unwell and the doctor had advised him complete rest. He, therefore, sought extension of time to file his reply. The said reply was supported with a medical certificate from Dr. Kedar Nath, B.M.S. dated 13.12.2006. The Inquiry Officer did not accede to the petitioner's request and proceeded ex parte submitting a report dated 21.04.2007 to the Management of the Institution. A copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply dated 05.05.2007.

7. The case of the petitioner is that, without considering his reply, the Committee of Management, by the resolution impugned dated 06.05.2007, ordered his dismissal from service, which was communicated by the Manager vide the order impugned dated 07.05.2007. Against the order passed by the Manager and the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Institution, dismissing the petitioner from service, the petitioner says, he moved an appeal dated 22.05.2007 to the District Minority Welfa