Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80207 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30837 of 1997 Petitioner :- Mohd Yashin Khan Respondent :- District Inspector Of School And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh,Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- V K Singh Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the termination order of the petitioner dated 04.09.1997 passed by the respondent no.2. 3. Initially, the said order was assailed on two grounds. Firstly, the impugned order is contrary to Section 16 G (3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as the 2nd respondent has not obtained prior approval from District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar before terminating the services of the petitioner. Secondly, the 2nd respondent did not follow the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. 4. So far as the first ground is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for minority Institutions, getting prior approval from the competent authority under Section 16 G (3) of the Act would not be applicable as per ratio decided by Hon'ble Apex Court. As far as the second ground is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated that the allegations made against the petitioner is that he by submitting the forged documents / certificates obtained appointment. To the said allegations, the petitioner has submitted reply on 26.07.1997 denying the said allegations that the petitioner has passed B.A. examination from Meerut University in the year 1989 with Roll No.A96389 but not with Roll No.99332. He has categorically stated that he has never filed any certificate from the college of Arts and Crafts, Lucknow University, Lucknow. Such being the situation, behind the back, the respondents have conducted inquiry and submitted report on 30.08.1997 but inquiry report was never served on the petitioner and without serving inquiry report and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent straightway terminated services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 04.09.1997 which clearly violates the principles of natural justice as well as observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 5. Notice was served on the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has been designated as Senior Counsel. Therefore, notice was issued to the 2nd respondent to engage another counsel. Despite repeated notice, no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically stated at paragraph no.23 of the writ petition that inquiry report dated 30.08.1997 was not served on the petitioner and the said assertion has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Reply to paragraph no.23 of the writ petition, it has been only narrated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has refused to receive notice but nothing has been stated with regard to inquiry report as to whether it has been supplied to the petitioner before passing the termination order or not. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as also on perusal of the counter affidavit, it transpires that before passing the impugned order dated 04.09.1997 terminating services of the petitioner, no opportunity has been granted and no inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner as such the impugned order was passed without providing inquiry report and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.09.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed, remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent to issue show cause notice along with inquiry report to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the said inquiry report and notice, the petitioner may submit his reply within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad