JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - In the city of Allahabad there in an institution known as the Gurukul Vedic Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya at Sirathu. It is affiliated to the Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, hereinafter referred to as the Vishwavidyalaya. The Vishwavidyalaya is recognised under the U.P. Universities Act, 1973 2. This petition relates to, in effect, the termination of services of a teacher, one Udho Prasad Vishwakarma, Respondent No. 3 hence referred to as the contesting respondent. The conditions of services of teachers of affiliated colleges, the aforesaid educational institution being an affiliated college to the Vishwavidyalaya, aforesaid, are governed by the requisite statutes framed by the Visawavidyalaya. 3. The matter has been to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act, on two occasions and the contention of the Committee of Management, the petitioner, is that it ought to see a remand a third time. 4. The issue was that certain students complained about respondent teacher the complaint is annexures `(1) and (2)' to the writ petition. The complaint by about six students was that the respondent is hard of hearing. Upon this the Committee of Management set about an exercise culminating in a resolution that a charge be drawn that the said respondent is suffering from a physical disability, that is to say, that he hears less and his services be dispensed with. From the records it appears that an attempt was made to dispense with his services with a communication of 26th August, 1981, which was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and the Committee of Management was advised by the Assistant Registrar of the Vishwavidyalaya, in effect, that no termination of a teacher can be made unless the Vice-Chancellor has given his approval. Subsequently the record bears that on 14th February, 1982, annexure `8' to the writ petition, the Vice-Chancellor approved the termination of the services of the respondent under statute 17.04 of the Vishwavidyalaya. 5. The contesting respondent filed a writ petition on 15th October, 1984 before a Bench of this Court claiming that his services have been terminated illegally. "The Bench was intimated at the Bar the termination of the petitioner's services has found approval of the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1983. 5. The contesting respondent filed a writ petition on 15th October, 1984 before a Bench of this Court claiming that his services have been terminated illegally. "The Bench was intimated at the Bar the termination of the petitioner's services has found approval of the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1983. Thus, this Court on 15th October, 1984 on Writ Petition No. 14803 of 1981 ordered that the contesting respondent (Petitioner in that writ petition) had an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act, aforesaid, and that he may represent to the Chancellor. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. 6. The petitioner filed his representation before the Chancellor which occasioned an order dated 6th August, 1985 and the approval accorded by the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1982 by which the services of this respondent as teacher had been dispensed with, was set aside. The learned Chancellor remanded the matter to the Vice-Chancellor of Vishwavidyalaya for consideration in effect, that the respondent teacher had not been given an adequate opportunity to explain the charges upon which his services were terminated. The learned Chancellor was of the view that the respondent teacher was not given the opportunity to have himself medically examined and produced a medical certificate nor did the institution referred the respondent teacher to an ear-nose-throat specialist for examination. The implication of the Chancellor's order was that either an opportunity ought to have been given to the respondent to have himself examined medically and simultaneously the institution was under an obligation to have the respondent referred to a specialist medical practitioner. In the latter alternative, the Committee of Management would have given itself an opportunity to have found out the correct facts. 7. On remand the matter went back to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor after he had formally offered an opportunity to both the parties to say whatever they had to contend, passed an order on 30th December, 1985, annexure'14' to the writ petition. By this, the earlier order of 14th February, 1982, by which the approval on termination had been granted, was recalled. The Vice-Chancellor directed the institution that the respondent be, in effect, reinstated and his emoluments paid accordingly. It is contended on behalf of the Committee of Management, the petitioner, that this direction whatever may be its worth, is only a communication of the Assistant Registrar. The Vice-Chancellor directed the institution that the respondent be, in effect, reinstated and his emoluments paid accordingly. It is contended on behalf of the Committee of Management, the petitioner, that this direction whatever may be its worth, is only a communication of the Assistant Registrar. This submission may not be correct and this aspect may be dealt with straightaway. The Communication aforesaid dated 30-12-1985 suggests as from record that it is upon the direction of the Vice-Chancellor. 8. The net result of the exercise upon an order of remand of the Chancellor by a decision dated 6th August, 1985 was that there was no approval on the termination of the services of the respondent. The order terminating his services on 24th December, 1981, was without sanction. The respondent teacher was required to be reinstated. 9. This time the Committee of Management represented to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act. The learned Chancellor heard the parties, namely, in effect the representative of the institution and the respondent teacher. The learned Chancellor declined to interfere with the order of 30th December, 1985 by which the Vice-Chancellor had disapproved the termination of service of the respondent teacher by an order of 24th December, 1981. 10. The only contention before this Court has been that the Vice-Chancellor had not given adequate opportunity to the institution to explain way the services of the respondent teacher had been terminated. This argument is contradicted by record. In paragraph 4 of the order of the learned Chancellor, it is stated that the Vice Chancellor heard the parties and not only the record was perused by the Vice-Chancellor but the Committee of Management also made a representation on 17th December, 1985. Thus the contention of the Committee of Management that it had not been given an opportunity to have its say before the Vice-Chancellor is against the record. 11. The next argument was that a teacher with physical disability cannot be permitted to continue. This Court is of the view that this contention cannot be permitted to raise at the Bar here as on the alleged disability of the respondent, the learned Chancellor cannot be said to have taken an unreasonable view. The learned Chancellor felt, and rightly, that the allegation of impaired hearing was without responsibility. 12. This Court is of the view that this contention cannot be permitted to raise at the Bar here as on the alleged disability of the respondent, the learned Chancellor cannot be said to have taken an unreasonable view. The learned Chancellor felt, and rightly, that the allegation of impaired hearing was without responsibility. 12. In fact, the first order of the learned Chancellor was a hint to the Committee of Management that it ought to take expert medical advice on its suspicion about the respondents handicap in hearing. The institution ought to have given an opportunity to itself to verify with responsibility whether there was in effect any truth in the allegation made by the students. To date the institution had not been gracious to have the teacher examined as desired by the learned Chancellor before an ear-nose-throat specialist. There is nothing on the record to say that the institution had indulged in an exercise to satisfy itself after the two orders of the learned Chancellor that this teacher indeed was hard of hearing. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, a teacher cannot be bundled out of his services merely on the allegation of students that he carries a physical disability, in reference to the context. The institution is obliged to verify such a circumstance with responsibility. 14. The charge in reference to the context comes within the category of physical and mental unfitness as referred under sub-clause (f) of Statutes 17.04 This Statutes, in reference to the context is referred to below ; "17.04 (1) A teacher of an affiliated college (other than a Principal) may be dismissed or removed or his services terminated on one or more of the following grounds - (a) ................... (b) ................... (c) ................... (d) ................... (e) ................... (f) Physical or mental unfitness ; (g).................... (h).................... 15. Statute 17.06, prescribed that such a charge or any other (exceptions excluded) must be followed by giving adequate opportunity to the person against whom the charge is being inquired. (b) ................... (c) ................... (d) ................... (e) ................... (f) Physical or mental unfitness ; (g).................... (h).................... 15. Statute 17.06, prescribed that such a charge or any other (exceptions excluded) must be followed by giving adequate opportunity to the person against whom the charge is being inquired. Statute 17.06, in this context prescribes is sub-clause (1), as below : "17.06(1) No order dismissing, removing, or terminating the services of a teacher on any ground mentioned in clause (1) of Statute 17.04 (except in the case of a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude or of abolition of post) shall be passed unless a charge has been framed against the teacher and communicated to him with a statement of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and he has been given adequate opportunity." 16. As physical and mental unfitness is a disability, and impaired hearing is one such disability, which needs to be assessed not without recourse to medical advice. It is on record that no ear-nose throat specialist, to date, has even examined the petitioner. 17. There were no grounds to terminate the services of the said respondent on 24th December, 1981 and now it is too Late to allow the institution to contend that there is an error in the order of the learned Chancellor. The learned Chancellor was absolutely correct that an allegation of the nature made, must be fortified with responsibility. There is no any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Chancellor dated 25th July, 1986, and thus, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order sought to be impugned. 18. The consequence of the order of the learned Chancellor being upheld are that the order of termination, which took effect on the approval of the Vice-Chancellor on the 14th February, 1982, annexure `8' to the writ petition, is redundant and inoperative and the petitioner's services were met not to be continued. While this petition is being dismissed, it needs direction to the petitioner that the salary of the said respondent, if not paid, effective 14-2-1982 shall be tendered to him within three months from to date. The reinstatement would take effect from 1st December, 1987. 19. While this petition is being dismissed, it needs direction to the petitioner that the salary of the said respondent, if not paid, effective 14-2-1982 shall be tendered to him within three months from to date. The reinstatement would take effect from 1st December, 1987. 19. If indeed the respondent teacher is hard of hearing and/or his hearing is impaired, then the institution ought to render him medical aid for treatment and remedial measures instead of resorting to get rid of him on unverified allegations. 20. The writ petition is, thus dismissed with costs.