HQL of 199é Petitioner: Mauaxvira Pratdp Lal, ' gm§ about b4 y gr< son of lata R $.La1, Heed Master, M; 1e gchool, Jhagnkharul C0111 ry; Tahsu ”cnan& acarh, ri¢tr1ct arguja, M.Pu writ Pet iti en No. VS w 50mm Réspovdents- g (1) Ewtem Foal fielas gimte5 \through its Chalmah-cum.. Manaclna Director, Seepet Qoca, Bll aspur; Dlatxict Bi1aspur M Pg (2) singhl C011 1ery Ec’iucatlon Seeiety / North Jhdorékhma, Diqtrict arouje M P. Thr. ifis President. General Mar aner; aouth Eastern Coa1—f1e1tls Limited, ”wage Mea, hi on Sadat y. (4) Jomt Direct or‘. ubilr' Instruction’ knbxkapux, Dlsimict gamuj a’ “P. WRIT PETITIQQ UNDER @3538. 226/227 COKE8T TUTION OF INDIik DETAILS 5F WRIT PETiTIr'“ 1a Pagiiéulars of the petitioner; 2w par cause “title abcve. .\ X1~EC~22 1Q/i1/2061 Shri R.K.6up+ci, !ear‘ned ccunsel fer The pefh‘ioner'. o h Shri P.S. Koshy, learned c sel for responden‘rs No.1 and 3. Shri Deep Keshar‘wam, lear ed counsel for respondenf No.4. Nana for respondem’ N02. Heard. (— WQJH£ Nofices waved To fhe respondems as per' office new dafred 25/04/1998. According To Shri Gupfa respcndem‘ No.2 aiso is effecfiyely represenfed énas uch as regpondenf is concerned woo m /I M outhorify én fhe presem‘ ma‘h‘er‘. Be ”rho? as i’r may, fhe i'§np\ugned order of formino‘fion was issu on 27/07/1996. fahow cause mficewos ordered 1’0 be iss ed on 17/03/1998 offer f‘ne pefii‘ioner approached fhis Cou f. 5hri Koohy represen‘ririg respondents $41 and 3 submi‘rs ha'f There was inordinate deiay. I‘r appears fhai’Shri Koshy is righ’r fhai' fhe pefifioner did no? pursue The maiier diligen‘riy wher as on The ofher hand 5hri GupTa submh‘s Thai in View of The imp ghed order of Termina‘iion The peTiTioner had To rush To This wriT CourT To obTain immediaTe reiief even avoiding The appeiiaTe ai 'horiTy prescribed under The reievanT provisions of law. [$3M e WWQEWJ) appoim‘ed Head Mas‘rer‘ of Middie cmfirmed in The édid pos'r of 17/05/198? Or} 29/06/1996 an office pefh‘itmer‘ IeveJgng sever'cd ailegm The allegafions. Hawever', wi‘rhou a :i wifhou? affording wri’r pe’ri‘ 2" (h fermina‘i'ion (Annesur'e-P/5) was is The Madh‘ya Pradesh (Adhyapakan Ta‘rhq Anya Karamck Se Haiane sambandhi Praki‘iya pnocedur'e fer Teacher's and ofher Show cause noiice Tobe issued To coinTemplaTes ThaT The changes av sdppiied To The empioyee. Ruie w iTTen sTaTemenT. Ruie 6 furThe ‘ i l 3 order was issued againsT The 'ions: The peTiTioner' replied To ‘T appoin‘iing any enquiry officer ard and of leading evidence 'ioner' any opporTuniTy of being Schooi. The peTiTioner‘ was again— Head MasTer‘ by or‘der' daTed eTc. The impugned order- of sued on 27/07/1996. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sahclha Lariyon 'Ko PadachyuT Karne $ewa ) Niyam, 1983 Prescribes The ' empioy'ees. Rule 3 is as regards The delinquenT employee. Rule 4 Id sTaTemenT of allegaTions To be 5 is as regards submission of r cenTemplaTes inspecTion of CRPR} V‘vx'l 'IZOUX‘SHUQO. aném‘qm’ FGW aw mm manm WW? 11W $ Wm $ afam mam . .02. a . The wr'i‘f pe‘fh‘ioner‘ was appc infed as an Assismn‘i' Teacher on 10/09/1962. In 1982 he was given promofion f0 The posf of Upper Di visian Teachér'. Theregffer- on 14/12/1987 fhe pe'ri‘rioner' was Xl—HC—ZZ mmmm WW? m“ ’e‘”a‘n‘s“‘Wa‘f "T‘he Tec may seek‘per‘mission for inspe‘ documem‘s for fhe “purpose of preparing his defense, Rule 7 is as y officer. regardsfg/r appoin'rmen’r of enquir v According ’ro DP. MK Shuk no? be appiicable 1‘0 fhe presenf c The Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Tafhcx Anya Karmchariyan Ke Vefa Since if is a long pending case, I giving specific finding on fhis issu which The service of ‘ihe wnif pe af‘i‘er- he had pu? in about 34 year's wr‘i‘r peti‘iiéner“, in my view‘The ser no? have been Termina‘ied in The inasmuch as prima facie There wa: X before fhe order of fermina‘rion counT alone The peTiTioner should succeed even assuming ThaT There [View .cher or oTher employee charged :‘iion- of reievan’r records and ia, The provisions aforesaid may ase in Terms of SecTion 2 (e) of Sikshan SansTha (Adhyapakon no Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978. am of The View ThaT insTead of a I wouid examine The manner in Tifioner came To be TerminaTed of conTinuous service. WheTher or noT The above provisions in Terms are applicabie To The presenT vice of The wriT peTiTioner Could manner soughT for To be done T no enquiry as such. If ThaT be so, The peTiTioner had absoiuTeiy no opporTuniTy’To defend himseif was issued. In my View, on This mp ‘ k mmaaaaia) The ConsTiTuTion of India. FurTher I am also of The opinion ThaTl vioiafion of principles of na‘fuEr'cxl jusfice came? be done away wifh irz The ma‘h‘er of employmzam‘ of The wr'i'r \pefi’rioner'. In 'fhis View of fhe maf‘r‘er whether or no? The peTiTioner had file: an appeal before fhe appellafe x ruies are appiicable would no? n 1uThoriTy, even if The aforesaid Affer‘ hearing Shri 61 peTi‘Hoper‘, Shr'i Koshy, learned learned cwnsel Jpfa, far' The counsel for? respondenTs (N131 <Si 3 apd Shri Deep Keshmwani, Learned counse! for respondent N04 and on perusal 0f The r'elevc dispose of fhis pe+if§on¢v¢ l ’/ For The reasons sfm‘ec 71:- above The impugned orde o Ter‘minafion issued on 27.071996 (Annexur'e - P/5) is se‘l dslcle. The wrif pefi‘fiorser Shall be re ’rhe compefem‘ aufhorl’ry f0 pefifioner‘ However, I shall made, fhe enfire proceeding of earliesf and a? any ra’fe noHa‘l enquiry as such is conducfed, The back wages from fhe dafe of l , GRPI{j—r}75f3l 1— 1/7Ol'l‘ ‘10 0C0. lake any difference. nT docUmenTs, I am inclined To VW‘ l nsTaTed forThwiTh. IT is open To make enquiry againsT The wriT make iT clear ThaT if enquiry is enquiry shall be compleTed aT The ier i Than 31“ March, 2002. If The axaémaq fa-wa’swEsw Wmmw WW1¥WW €H W W m . . 04., . Was some deiay in approaching fhis Caur'f under Arfick 226 of fermina‘rion fiil ‘i'he dam of reir resuH of The enquiry. Cer+ified copy be given as sm‘famenf shaH depend on fhe ber‘ rules.