JUDGMENT V. N. Khare, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who was a class IV employee of the institution, known as C. P. K. U. Inter College, Musanagar, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as the institution, challenged the order passed by the principal of the Institution, dated Nth September, 1975, and the appellate orders rejecting his appeals. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a peon (class IV employee) on 1-1-1974 by the principal of the Institution. Subsequently, he was confirmed as such with effect from 1-7-1973. The allegation of the petitioner is that he discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the entire staff of the institution and there was no complaint of any sort against him. It is further alleged that Mohd. Yasin and Mahadeo, other two peons of the institution, were not on good terms with the petitioner, with the result they lodged a false report with the clerk of the institution on 20th May, 1975, to the effect that the petitioner had removed some timber belonging to the institution in the evening of 19th May, 1975. It appears that on the basis of the said report the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently on 2nd August, 1975, he was served with a charge sheet. One Ram Autar Pathak, a Lecturer of the institution, was appointed as Enquiring Officer. By the aforesaid charge sheet the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation by 20th August, 1975. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet before the Enquiring Officer. In the said explanation the petitioner denied the allegations him inasmuch as he stated that he was not present in the institution on the day the theft is said to have been committed. On 20th August, 1975, the Enquiring Officer directed the petitioner to advice documentary evidence in support of his stand taken in his explanation. It is alleged that as no date was fixed, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiring Officer on 11th September, 1975, on his own accord and filed the certificates from two Lecturers testifying that the petitioner was not present in the institution on the day when the theft is alleged to have taken place, on 18th September, 1975, the petitioner heard that some registered letter was sent to him but the same was not delivered to him and thus the said letter returned undelivered. On the said date, i. e. 18th September, 1975, the service of the petitioner were terminated by the order of the principal of the institution. On 10th October, 1775, the petitioner filed as appeal before the Committee of Management of the institution, but the same was rejected on 20th May, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, but the same was also rejected by an order dated 6th July, 1977. Which was served on the petitioner on 20th July, 1977. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions relating to the procedure to be followed before imposing punishment of removal or dismissal from service in regard to class IV employees are virtually the same as provided by unamended Article 311 (a) of the Constitution and the petitioner having not been given opportunity of examining his witnesses in defence and cross - examining the witnesses whose statements were relied upon in support of the charge, was denied the opportunity of showing cause and therefore the order of removal passed against him is illegal and void. The petitioner has asserted in the petition that he was never informed of the date of enquiry by the Enquiring Officer and it was only on 19th September, 1975, that he learned that some registered letter was sent at his home address, but the same returned to the Enquiring Officer undelivered. 4. A counter affidavit has been field on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was informed of the date on which he was required to examine himself as well as his witnesses or cross examination the witnesses, by registered letter dated 8th September, 1975, but the petitioner in spite of notice did not appear with the result the Enquiring Officer proceeded with the enquiry exparte and submitted his report to the Principal of the institution. It is alleged in the supplementary counter affidavit that the said registered letter which was served upon the petitioner by refusal on 13-9-1975 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools along with the list of documents in connection with the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him and is not in possessing of respondents Nos. It is alleged in the supplementary counter affidavit that the said registered letter which was served upon the petitioner by refusal on 13-9-1975 was sent to the District Inspector of Schools along with the list of documents in connection with the appeal preferred by the petitioner before him and is not in possessing of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the same may be summoned from the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The case of the petitioner is that he never refused to accept the said registered letter and in fact it returned to the Enquiring Officer as undelivered letter. Since there was controversy in regard to service of letter, we directed the learned standing counsel, representing the District Inspector of Schools, to make available the record before this court, and the case was adjourned, but on the next date of hearing the said record was not produced by the learned standing counsel with the result that the case required another adjournment. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner stated that this writ petition is pending since the year 1977 and the petitioner is out of employment, and as such the case may not further be adjourned and his other arguments may be considered and the first argument may be taken as not pressed. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, we are re framing ourselves from considering the first argument of the learned counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that there was violation of regulation 37 framed under the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, hereinafter referred to as the act, in removing the petitioner from service. In fact the petitioner was denied an opportunity to appear before the principal who was the punishing authority and therefore, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is illegal and void In paragraph 29 of the petition, the petitioner has asserted that after the receipt of the report of the Enquiring Officer, the principal of the institution, who was the punishing authority did not give any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the allegations contained in paragraph 29 are not specifically denied. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the allegations contained in paragraph 29 are not specifically denied. It is admitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the punishing authority, but the stand taken is that the Enquiring Officer gave opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him, but the petitioner knowingly did not participate in the enquiry and therefore it was not incumbent upon the principal of the institution to give any notice or any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the stand taken in the counter-Affidavit, the question which anuses for consideration is as to whether failure 011 the part of the punishing authority to give opportunity to the petitioner for hearing before him would result in the invalidation of the order terminating the services of the petitioner. In the year 1975 by virtue of regulation 100, the provisions of regulations 32, 35 and 37, which provide procedure relating to removal and dismissal from service of a teacher were also extended in the case of class IV employees of the Government aided and recognised institutions by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education with effect from 3rd March 1975. These regulations read thus ; "32 (1) An employee may be dismissed from service on grounds, such as gross - insubordination, deliberate or serious neglect of duty, gross misconduct or commission of an act which constitutes a criminal offence or dishonesty, corruption, misappropriation of funds, sex per varsity or moral turpitude. (2) An employee may be removed from service on the ground mentioned above as also on the grounds of inefficiency in administration or institutional work or unauthorised tuition or employment. (3) An employee may be reduced in rank or subjected to diminutions in emoluments on grounds such as deficiency in administration, unsatisfactory work or conduct, lack of interest in co - Curricular activities or discharge of examination dualities or doubtful integrity. Reduction may be to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale. 36(1) The grounds on which it. is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. 36(1) The grounds on which it. is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the employee charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged employee of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required within three weeks of the receipt of the charge sheet to pul in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired to be heard in persons. If he or the inquiring authority so desires, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring authority considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross examination the witness, to give evidence in persons, and to have such witness called as he may wish, provided that the inquiring authority conducting the enqiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. The inquiring authority conducting the enquiry may also, separately from those proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. (2) Clauses (1) shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other persons impracticable to communicate with him. (3) All or any of the provisions of clause (I) may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements thereof and those requirements can in the opinion of the inquiring authority on waived without injustice to the persons charged. 37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation from the enquiring authority are recessed, the Committee of Management shall meet to consider the report of the proceedings and recommendation made and take decision on the some. The employee shall however, be allowed, if the so desires, so appear before the Committee in persons to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The employee shall however, be allowed, if the so desires, so appear before the Committee in persons to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The Committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector of Regional Inspectors as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it. A perusal of the above regulations would show that after receipt of the enquiry report, the punishing authority, in the present case the principal of the institution, was required to send a notice to the petitioner intimating him, if he so desires, to appear before him in person to state his case and answer any question that may be put by him, and on such intimation of the delinquent officer expresses his desires to appear before him, he may be allowed to do so. In the present case, admittedly, the principal who was the punishing authority of the petitioner, did not give any intimation to the petitioner to appear personally before him. In the absence of such opportunity having been given to the petitioner there was breach of Regulation 37 framed under the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that the petitioner had already been given an opportunity before the Enquiring Officer and as such the punishing authority was not required to give further opportunity to appear before him. The argument has no merit. Regulation 37 clearly provides for opportunity being given to the delinquent officer who desires to appear before the punishing authority. The denial of opportunity would mean breach of the procedure laid down in Regulation 37 of the Regulation framed under the Act. The procedure which is to be followed in imposing the punishment of removal having not been followed, the order terminating the services of the petitioners is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed, The impugned orders dated 18-9-1975, 28-5-1976 and 6-7-1977 are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated to his post. However, it will to open to the respondents to pass orders afresh after observing the procedure provided under the Regulations. The petitioners is entitled to his costs.