JUDGMENT

S.D. Agarwala and G.K. Mathur, JJ. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counter-affidavits and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The parties had agreed that the petition itself may be disposed of at this stage

2. The petitioner, Raraesh Chandra Misra, is Principal of Basant Theosophical Uchatar Madhyamib Vidyalaya, Kamachha, Varanasi, hereinafter referred to as 'School'.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Principal of the school on 5th July, 1977. He was thereafter confirmed on the said post. The school is a recognised Higher Secondary School and is on the grants-in-aid list of the State Government.

4. On the basis of certain reports made by the audit and certain complaints received by the Management in regard to the admission of the students, the petitioner was suspended by the Management pending enquiry by an order dated 28th April, 1987. This order of suspension was revoked by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 18th June, 1987. The Management again passed second suspension order against the petitioner on 1st July, 1987. This suspension order was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools and it lapsed automatically.

5. The charges were levelled against the petitioner for gross misappropriation of funds of the School and financial irregularities, gross insubordination, gross negligence of duties and gross misconduct. The case of the respondent, School is that the Management Committee appointed a sub-committee comprising of Sri D. K. Bhattacharya, former Chief Secretary, U. P. Government and former Chairman, U. P. Public Services Commission and Uma Kant, retired Chief Engineer, U. P" Public Works Department to enquire into the said charges, The sub-committee submitted bis report on 15th December, 1987. This report was an ex pane report as the case of the School is that the petitioner did not accept the charge sheet. This report which was submitted by sub-committee was considered by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 7th April 1988. It was decided by the Management Committee that the petitioner's services be terminated. This proposal of the Management Committee was sent to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission U. P. Allahabad for its approval. The Commission accorded its approval on 17th February, 1990 which was communicated to the petitioner by the Commission's letter dated 19th February, 1990. The petitioner consequently has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Commission dated 17s.li February, 1990 which has been communicated to him by its letter dated 19th February, 1990 and has also sought direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as principal of the school.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Dr. R. G. Padia hat raised two main submissions. His first submission is that the sub-committee appointed by the Managing Committee to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner was wholly illegal and consequently any report submitted by the sub-committee could not be relied upon to establish the charges against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the entire proceedings of the enquiry committee are without jurisdiction and consequently vitiated in law. The second submission of the petitioner is that order of the Commission dated 17th February, 1990 is illegal and void. As the commission has acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. In so far as the first submission is concerned the case of the petitioner is that the sub-committee under the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act could be constituted only by members of the Committee of Management. Outsiders who are not members of the Committee of Management could not have been members of a sub-committee.

8. In regard to the second submission the argument of the petitioner is that the Commission called the petitioner and t