JUDGMENT M. P. Singh J. 1. "The petitioner had abused and assaulted the Principal of the College on 16-5-1987 in the College premises itself' was one of the proved charges on the basis of which an order of dismissal was passed against him. 2. The petitioner was appointed as permanent lecturer in Hindi in Tulsi Inter College, Babuganj Jamethi Kunda, District Pratapgarh. He was suspended on 22-6-87, This order was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. A charge sheet dated 25-6-1987 was served on him on 8-7-1987. The Manager of the Committee of Management was appointed as enquiry officer. He enquired into the matter and submitted his report. The Committee of Management passed a resolution for dismissal of the petitioner. The relevant papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 3-11-1987 for approval by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad (in short the Commission). 3. On 6-7-1989 the Commission approved the dismissal of the petitioner. The present petition is directed against the said order. 4. Heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S. N. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the principle of natural justice has not been followed in the instant case. The petitioner had not been given full opportunity of hearing. 5. The order to appreciate the controversy it will be relevant to mention the charges levelled against the petitioner. THEy are as follows :- (i) the petitioner realised a sum of Rs 309-82 on 15-5-1987 from the students of class VIII-B and had not deposited the same in the office. He committed an embezzlement of the said amount, (ii) The petitioner realised a sum of Rs. 45-08 in October 1986 from the students of class XII and deposited the same in the month of November, 1986. He made a temporary embezzlement of the said amount (iii) The petitioner having realised a sum of Rs. 0.66 paise as absence penalty in September 1985 from a student of Class XII, had deposited the same in July 1986 and thus he made a temporary embezzlement of the aforesaid amount. (iv) The petitioner had abused and assaulted the Principal of the College on 16-5-1987. 6. The Manager, who was the enquiry officer gave a notice to the petitioner about the enquiry proceedings. (iv) The petitioner had abused and assaulted the Principal of the College on 16-5-1987. 6. The Manager, who was the enquiry officer gave a notice to the petitioner about the enquiry proceedings. On 22-7-1987 the petitioner demanded the photo copies of the relevant papers. The enquiry 'Officer sent a registered letter on 23-7-1987 to the petitioner by means of which he was informed that he may inspect the relevant papers on 29-7-1387 between 10 A. M. to 12 noon in 7. In the meantime the petitioner submitted his reply on 27-7-1987 to the charges levelled against him. It was received by the enquiry officer on 29-7-1987. 8. The next date fixed was 8-8-1987. A few days before that date the petitioner requested the enquiry officer' by means of a letter dated 3-8-1987 that he may be directed to inspect the record on 10-8-1987. On 8-8-1987 enquiry officer examined the witnesses including the Principal Sri Deo Narian Chaturvedi. On. 11-8-1987 he sent a registered letter to the petitioner directing him to inspect the record and fixed 29-8- 1987 for hearing. It was received by the petitioner on 28-8-1987. 9. In the meantime on 22-8-1987 the petitioner wrote another letter to the enquiry officer, which he received con 31-8-1987, demanding inspection of papers already referred to. The request was accepted. 10. On 31-8-1987 the enquiry officer sent all the relevant papers demanded by the petitioner to him and fixed 19-9-1987 for hearing. Though it was not necessary but as an abundant caution the District Inspector of Schools was also informed about the date of hearing and supply of all the papers. The petitioner made a complaint that all the papers were not sent to him. He was sent waste papers and old newspapers. So on 18-9-1987 the enquiry officer sent all the papers to the District Inspector of Schools to be delivered to the petitioner so that he may not raise a false plea again. Similar letter was sent to the petitioner that the entire record has been sent to the District Inspector of Schools and the petitioner was directed to make an inspection there. The next date fixed for hearing was 6-10 1987. 11. In addition to that on 20-9-1987 a news item was published in the 'Dainik Jagran' informing the petitions that all the records were available in the office of the District INspector of Schools, Pratapgarh. The next date fixed for hearing was 6-10 1987. 11. In addition to that on 20-9-1987 a news item was published in the 'Dainik Jagran' informing the petitions that all the records were available in the office of the District INspector of Schools, Pratapgarh. The petitioner was informed to inspect the same. 6-10-1J987 was the next date fixed for hearing. On 22-9-1987 the enquiry officer again informed the petitioner by means of the registered letter that publication has been made in the newspaper. After examining the witnesses he submitted a report to the Committee of Management on 9-10-1987. He found all the charges having been proved. 12. Copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner through a registered post. He was also informed to appear before the Committee of Management on 31-10-1987 through registered post He did not appear. The Committee of Management passed a resolution for dismissal of the petitioner A copy of the resolution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 3-11-87 for approval by the Commission, The Commission after receiving the recommendation issued notice to the petitioner to appear. He was heard. The Commission after hearing the parties approved the order of dismissal. 13. Thus I am of the view that the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard but he did nothing to defend himself. There was no violation of principle of natural justice, 14. The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that the provisions of enquiry as contemplated in Chapter III of Regulation 36 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 have not been strictly followed. I find no merit in the same inasmuch as in the instant case the grounds on which the action was proposed to be taken was reduced in the from of charges and communicated to the petitioner. He was given opportunity to file a written statement which he did. Full opportunity was given to inspect the record. He had knowledge about the dates fixed for examination of the witnesses. He did not appear to cross- examine them. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence found that the charges were proved. THEre is no breach of Regulation 36. He was given opportunity to file a written statement which he did. Full opportunity was given to inspect the record. He had knowledge about the dates fixed for examination of the witnesses. He did not appear to cross- examine them. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence found that the charges were proved. THEre is no breach of Regulation 36. The next submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the charges levelled against him were not of such a serious nature as would have resulted in dismissal of the petitioner from service. This submission is devoid of merit Though all the charges levelled against him have been found to be proved and I endorse the finding but in my opinion only the finding on the charge of abusing and assaulting the Principal in the College campus was sufficient for dismissal of the services of the petitioner, the order suffers from no illegality. Sufficiency or in sufficiency of the evidence cannot be gone into by this Court. Refer to Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 . 15. In the case State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779 , the Supreme Court took the view that if an order of dismissal can be supported from any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. 16. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in another case Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232 . No other point was pressed for consideration. 17. I find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.