JUDGMENT
Bhagwan Din, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the month of July. 1970 in Hari Shanker Pandey Inter College, Lallapur. Allahabad (in short Institution). In the month of June, 1996 by the order dated 28.6.1996 he was placed under suspension by the respondent No. 3, the Principal of the Institution. Against the order of his suspension the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 28.6.1996 be issued.
2. During the pendency of the petition, this Court by order dated 26.11.1996 directed that the enquiry proceedings shall not be stopped, if any enquiry is in progress. Before the petition could be disposed of the petitioner was terminated from service by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 26.6.1997. The petitioner, therefore, sought amendment in the petition as below :
“Ground No. 9.–Because the impugned termination order dated 26.6.1997 passed by the Acting Principal is illegal and passed without prior approval of the DIOS.
Ground No. 10.–Because the impugned termination order dated 26.6.97 was passed by the respondent No. 3 without holding any enquiry or without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. Hence the termination order is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.”
In the prayer clause, Sub-clause (c) has been added as–
“(c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 26.6.97 passed by respondent No. 3.”
The petitioner thus, has challenged the order of termination on two grounds :
“(A) That prior to making the termination order, approval of DIOS was not obtained.
(B) That the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of an ex parte enquiry without giving him opportunity to defend himself and also denying him opportunity of hearing.”
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Regulation-31 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, specifically provides for approval of the DIOS in case the employees of the recognized institution is punished with the dismissal removal, reduction in rank, stoppage of increments.
4. On the other hand, Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the Regulation-31 lays down that Principal shall be competent Authority for imposing punishment on a class-IV employee, and that against the order of the Principal, the petitioner may file an appeal before the Committee of Management. In case, the Committee of Management rejects the appeal, the Class-IV employee shall have right to an appeal against the decision of the Committee of Management, before the DIOS. The provision of Regulation 31 impliedly indicates that prior approval of the DIOS in the case of punishment, dismissal, termination, reduction in rank and stoppage of increment awarded to a class-IV employee, shall not be necessary.
5. A similar controversy was raised before this Court in Daya Shankar Tewari v. Principal, R.D.B.M. Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Neogaon, Mirzapur and Ors.. (1998) 2 UPLBEC 1101. In its decision the learned Single Judge held that–“Sub-section (1) of Section 16-G provides that the condition of service of every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by the Regulations. Therefore, the statute permits framing of Regulations providing conditions of service of every person employed and therefore, this condition includes Class-IV employee’s also. Regulation-31 of Chapter-Ill of the Regulations so framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides for prior approval in case of certain punishments including termination…….” “The only provisions of Regulation 31 indicate its scope of applicability. It is true that first paragraph of Regulation 31 while providing for prior approval in case of some punishment, does not refer to Class-IV employees specially but the said first paragraph providing for prior approval refers to all employees and there is no reason to presume exclusion of class IV employees from the applicability of the said Regulation.”
6. Now there is no escape from the in holding that prior approval of the DIOS is essential in awarding punishment of termination, dismissal etc. of Class-IV employee. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that approval was not required because petitioner was a Class-IV employee, is not acceptable. It is not disputed by the respondents that no approval of the DIOS, prior to his termination by the Principal was obtained. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of termination be quashed on this ground alone. Since the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that no approval of the DIOS was obtained in the case of the petitioner, prior to terminating him from service, the other grounds sought to challenge the propriety of the impugned order is not considered.
7. The petition is allowed and the termination order dated 26.6.1997 is quashed.