SUNIL AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri G. K. Singh for petitioner, and Sri V. K. Singh for committee of management, Sri Shiv Pratap Singh, Inter College, Pawai Kalan, district Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition as well as learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows : Petitioner was initially appointed as j. T. C. grade teacher on 21. 7. 1964 and thereafter as C. T. grade teacher in I9g9. He was appointed in L. T. grade with effect from 1. 9. 1975 and thereafter confirmed with effect from 31. 8. 1974. His appointment as L. T. grade teacher was made as direct recruitment after advertisement and through a selection committee. It was approved by District Inspector of schools, Mirzapur on 28. 8. 1973. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was suspended on 1. 4. 1980. The charge-sheet dated 5. 4. 1980, charged petitioner with appearing in the examination of Acharya in 1971 as institutional student of Adarsh Sri Shiv prasad Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Mirzapur, without taking permission of the committee of management. Charge No. 2 levelled imputation of successfully appearing in Vishistha Shastri examination as institutional student in 1972, in which the examination took place on 6. 5. 1972 upto 3. 00 p. m. at Varanasi whereas petitioner was shown to be present in the School at Mirzapur upto 11. 30 a. m. Charge No. 3 relates abetting in cheating in the Board examination on 5. 4. 1977 and failing to invigilate properly in the examination. Charge Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were with regard to coming late in the institution, failing to adhere to the time table of the school and for admitting students against the orders of Principal and without obtaining transfer certificate, such as admission of Jai Kumar Dev in Class X-C on 20. 8. 1976. Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. So far as first two charges are concerned, it was pleaded that petitioner had taken permission for appearing in the aforesaid examinations and that it is not impossible to reach varanasi between 11. 30 a. m. to 3. 00 p. m. So far charge No. 3 with regard to cheating, after denying the charge, it was stated by petitioner that son of the Principal was appearing in the examination. 30 a. m. to 3. 00 p. m. So far charge No. 3 with regard to cheating, after denying the charge, it was stated by petitioner that son of the Principal was appearing in the examination. Petitioner refused to oblige and to permit him to cheat in examinations and an explanation was required from petitioner on which he submitted a reply. The Principal persuaded him that in case truth is discovered, the examination Centre will be cancelled and thus in the interest of the school and having due regard to the Principal, petitioner wrote a letter in the same manner as it was dictated to him by the Principal. Charge Nos. 4 and 5 was also denied and it was stated that petitioner is punctual and has taken classes according to time table. With regard to charge No. 6, it was explained by petitioner that only one student Jai Kumar Dev was admitted by him with due permission and direction of the Principal and since the admission form was not available, the application was taken on plain paper. ( 4 ) A report was submitted by Inquiry Officer on 8. 11. 1980 to the committee of management. By a resolution dated 29. 11. 1980, the committee of management considered the report and the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, and after having considered the documents, dismissed petitioner under Section 16g of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (the Act) read with regulation 32 (1), and forwarded the papers to District Inspector of Schools for approval. The district Inspector of Schools by his notice dated 27. 12. 1980, required petitioner to show cause as to why approval be not granted. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 17. 1. 1981, reiterating the reply to the charge-sheet and stating that the committee of management could not have dismissed petitioner without approval. He submitted that no opportunity was afforded to him and that the notice given to appear before the Managing Committee on 28. 11. 1980, has been stage managed, and that in fact he did not receive any notice which was actually not sent to him at all. He enclosed a certificate from the Superintendent of Post Office, Mirzapur, certifying that no such registered letter dated 18. 11. 1980, was sent by the Manager of the College for being delivered to petitioner between 18. 11. 1980 to 20. 11. 1980. He enclosed a certificate from the Superintendent of Post Office, Mirzapur, certifying that no such registered letter dated 18. 11. 1980, was sent by the Manager of the College for being delivered to petitioner between 18. 11. 1980 to 20. 11. 1980. ( 5 ) THE District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 30. 1. 1981, communicated his approval to the dismissal to the management with copy to petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education under sub-section 3 (c) of Section 16 of the Act. The appeal was decided on 27. 7. 1985. The Deputy Director of Education found that although the charges are proved with regard to negligence in performing duties and that the integrity is doubtful, but the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and that the justice will be served in case petitioner is reduced to be lowest to the pay-scale in L. T. grade. The management has filed a writ Petition No. 15107 of 1985 against the order of Deputy Director of Education, by which punishment was reduced. This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2. 11. 1993 but it appears that an application was moved to recall the order on 13. 12. 1993, and is pending. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 27. 7. 1985, order of the District Inspector of Schools approving dismissal on 30. 1. 1981 and the resolution of the committee of management, dated 28. 11. 1980, as well as charge-sheet dated 5. 4. 1980 and for reinstatement with payment of salary as L. T. grade teacher month by month. ( 7 ) BY an interim order passed by this Court, the operation of the order of Deputy Director of education dated 27. 7. 1985 and the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 30. 1. 1981, were stayed. It is stated that inspite of stay order, petitioner was not allowed to work, but that he has been paid the minimum salary as L. T. grade teacher without permitting him to attend the institution. He has been denied promotions and benefit of pay revisions. ( 8 ) SRI R. N. Singh, senior advocate, submits that the disciplinary inquiry grossly violated principle of natural justice. No attempt was made by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges against petitioner. He has been denied promotions and benefit of pay revisions. ( 8 ) SRI R. N. Singh, senior advocate, submits that the disciplinary inquiry grossly violated principle of natural justice. No attempt was made by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges against petitioner. Evidence, if any, was taken without allowing petitioner to participate in the inquiry. Petitioner was not intimated with the date fixed and was not allowed to lead any evidence in defence. A copy of the inquiry report was never supplied to petitioner and that the committee of management did not inform petitioner about the date fixed before the Committee. The so-called registered letter to appear before the committee of management was never sent and received, and thus the entire proceedings are violative of principle of natural justice and are procedurally ultra vires. According to Sri R. N. Singh, the findings recorded by the District inspector of Schools and Deputy Director of Education cannot substitute or rectify the procedure adopted by Inquiry Officer. The District Inspector of Schools has only to look into the nature of charges and whether due procedure was complied with. He cannot act as disciplinary authority and record findings of guilt against petitioner. It was further submitted that petitioner has been wrongly deprived of the benefits of interim order and has been paid a meagre amount of Rs. 900 per month for the last 18 years. According to him, the committee of management, which did not allow petitioner to enter into the premises, should be penalised for failing to comply with the direction of this Court. ( 9 ) SRI R. N. Singh, further submits on merits, that petitioner had taken permission before appearing in the examination in the year 1971 and 1972 and in any case after petitioners direct recruitment as L. T. grade teacher, approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur on 28. 8. 1973, the allegation with regard to period prior to 1973 could not have been taken into consideration. In respect of charge No. 3, he submits that since petitioner did not oblige principals son in cheating, he made a complaint and was thereafter persuaded to write a letter in good faith, which was used against him. In any case, he was not given an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which such letter was written by him. With regard to charge Nos. In any case, he was not given an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which such letter was written by him. With regard to charge Nos. 4, 5 and 6, he submits that there was no proof, and that admitting one student with permission of principal cannot be subjected to disciplinary charge and inquiry. ( 10 ) SRI V. K. Singh, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was guilty of taking admission and persued study unauthorisedly in 1971 and 1972. He could not have reached Varanasi with the then available transport within three hours and wrongly claimed that he was present in the college on that day. With regard to charge of cheating in examinations, it was contended that petitioner had admitted his guilty conduct and thereafter cooked up a story about Principals son. The charge with regard to absence without leave and admission of student without permission of principal was also true. Due procedure was followed in holding inquiry. According to Sri V. K. Singh, there is no provision in the regulations to supply copy of inquiry report and that petitioner was sent a registered letter to appear before the committee of management. He did not avail that opportunity inspite of service of notice. The committee of management considered all the charges and found him guilty and rightly dismissed him from service. The District Inspector of schools and Joint Director of Education have passed detailed orders with application of mind confirming the findings. ( 11 ) THE issue between the parties is whether petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend himself and was prejudiced in the manner in which Inquiry was conducted and the decision to dismiss him was arrived at by the committee of management. Regulations 36 and 37 of Chapter iii of the Regulation made under U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provide for procedure of holding disciplinary inquiry against the teachers in recognised and aided institutions. These regulations are quoted as below : "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. (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 put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desired to be heard in person. 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 that inquiring authority considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person, and to have such witnesses called as he may wish ; provided that the inquiring authority conducting the enquiry 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 these proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the employee. (2) Clause (1) shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. (3) All or any of the provisions of Clause (1) 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 be waived without injustice to the person charged. 37. Soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation from the inquiring authority are received, the committee of management shall after notice to employee meet to consider the report of the proceeding and recommendation made and take decision on the case. The employee shall be allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in person to state his case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The employee shall be allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in person 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 or Regional Inspectress, as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it. " ( 12 ) IT is not disputed between the parties that a copy of the inquiry report dated 8. 11. 1980, was not supplied to petitioner. Sri V. K. Singh submits that there was no requirement of giving a copy of the report to petitioner and that petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to appear before the committee of management inspite of notice to him. Petitioner has denied despatch and receipt of such notice requiring him to appear before the Committee. The District Inspector of Schools, instead of finding whether due procedure was complied with, proceeded to act as disciplinary authority and found that the charges are established and the punishment was approved. The deputy Director of Education proceeded to hear the appeal as if he is also a disciplinary authority and instead of considering the nature of gravity of charges and compliance of due procedure in accordance with the regulations, he also proceeded to decide the matter as if it was a first appeal and recorded finding that the charges are proved against him. The Deputy Director of Education, however, reduced the punishment and found that justice will be served in case petitioner is reduced to the lowest of the pay scale of L. T. grade. He also did not advert to the issue whether petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. ( 13 ) REGULATION 37 provides that soon after the report of the proceeding and recommendation from inquiring authority are received, the committee of management shall, after notice to the employee, meet to consider the report of the proceedings and recommendation made and take decision on the case, the employee shall be allowed to appear in person and to state his case. The opportunity to the employee at this stage is not a empty formality. He should be allowed to state his case and answer any question and this opportunity is meaningless until a employee is supplied with a copy of the inquiry report. The opportunity to the employee at this stage is not a empty formality. He should be allowed to state his case and answer any question and this opportunity is meaningless until a employee is supplied with a copy of the inquiry report. It is the report and recommendations which are to be considered by the Managing Committee. Unless the employee knows the findings and recommendations against him, he cannot state his case before the committee of management. In the present case, there was serious dispute with regard to charge No. 3 and charge No. 6. Petitioner was not aware whether the letter written by him in respect of cheating in the board examination was accepted. He was not aware whether his explanation has been taken into consideration or not. Petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence about the facts which may have proceeded or compelled him to write a letter. Respondents have not cared to file a copy of the letter before this Court. Similarly, it was not known to petitioner whether explanation of petitioner with regard to Sri Jai Kumar Dev was accepted by the Inquiry Officer or not. In the absence of supply of the inquiry report, an employee will be handicapped and will not be able to defend himself before the committee of management, in Kanhaiya Lal v. District Inspector of schools, Bareilly and Ors. , 1991 AWC (Supp) 596 : (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1106, this Court held in para 10, that when the inquiry report was not supplied nor the evidence which was read against the employee was made available to him, the procedural safeguard contemplated by Regulation 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the Act were violated. In Ram Kumar Dixit v. District Inspector of Schools. Bareilly, 1980 UPLBEC 110, a Division Bench of this Court quashed the orders of Deputy Director of Education on the ground that no evidence was recorded nor the report of the Inquiry Officer was considered by the committee of management after notice to petitioner, and thus the procedure was in contravention of the statutory provisions of regulations 36 and 37, which render the decision of the Committee illegal. In Surendra Nath misra v. Up-Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi Mandal, 198o ACJ 396, it was found that before approval is sought, the committee of management must take necessary steps in accordance with regulations. In Surendra Nath misra v. Up-Shiksha Nideshak, Jhansi Mandal, 198o ACJ 396, it was found that before approval is sought, the committee of management must take necessary steps in accordance with regulations. ( 14 ) PETITIONER was given direct appointment as L. T. grade teacher after advertisement and following the procedure of selection, which was approved on 28. 8. 1973. The first two charges was prior to this appointment. The allegations constitute indiscipline prior to the said date could not have been taken into consideration. The principle of washing off the adverse entries of prior or after allowing to cross efficiency bar are attracted in the present case. Once petitioner was given fresh appointment by selection committee in a different grade as L. T. grade teacher, any allegation against him with regard to his past conduct could not have been made part of the charges to proceed against him. Reference may be made to the decisions of Supreme Court in state of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal, AIR 1970 SC 2086 , in support of the aforesaid proposition. The question whether, petilioner was served with a show cause notice sent by registered post by the committee of management to appear before the committee of management also cannot detain the Court any longer. Adherence to principle of natural justice is sine qua non for a fair enquiry. Punishing authority must ensure that the notice of hearing is not only sent but also served upon delinquent employee. The object in Regulation 37 is to allow the employee to appear before the committee. For this purpose, the notice to employee means service of notice and not merely despatch of notice. A document which has been sent by registered post can be taken to have been served only when it is established that it was tendered to the addressee. Where an employee disputes that the notice for appearance before the committee of management was not served upon him, the District Inspector of Schools, before approving the punishment must record a finding about its service. In the present case, petitioner had pleaded in the very first paragraph with grievance that he was neither sent nor did he receive the notice for hearing to appear before the committee of management on 28. 1. 1980. The District Inspector of Schools completely missed the issue and proceeded to act like a disciplinary authority. In the present case, petitioner had pleaded in the very first paragraph with grievance that he was neither sent nor did he receive the notice for hearing to appear before the committee of management on 28. 1. 1980. The District Inspector of Schools completely missed the issue and proceeded to act like a disciplinary authority. He did not even refer to this question which was raised before him, and which completely knocks off the inquiry proceedings. The Deputy Director of Education has also missed the issue all together and proceeded to examine the charges immediately after setting the case that petitioner was sent a notice and he did not appear before the committee of management. ( 15 ) PETITIONER has relied upon a certificate given by Post Master which was submitted before the district Inspector of Schools and which certified that no such registered letter was sent by the manager of the College between 18. 11. 1980 to 20. 11. 1980, to be delivered to petitioner. There appears to be apparently no reason for a confirmed teacher not to appear before the committee of management. The suggestion given by Sri V. K. Singh that petitioners brother was an employee in Post Office is not of any consequence as petitioners brother joined post office in the year 1982 whereas the certificate was given by Superintendent of Post Office, on 21. 1. 1981. In any case, there is nothing on record to show as to how the employee of Post Office could insist superintendent of Police Office to give a false certificate. In the facts and circumstances, 1 find that failure to supply inquiry report to petitioner and to inform him with the date of appearance before the committee of management deprived petitioner of an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations and seriously prejudiced him in defending himself. The principles of natural justice were, therefore, grossly violated, and the findings are thus vitiated. ( 16 ) THE next question to be considered is whether the matter should be sent back for allowing petitioner an opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceeding. The principles of natural justice were, therefore, grossly violated, and the findings are thus vitiated. ( 16 ) THE next question to be considered is whether the matter should be sent back for allowing petitioner an opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceeding. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of Deputy Director of Education, that the charges were not serious to warrant punishment of dismissal, as well as the fact that this writ petition is pending since more than 18 years, I do not find it in the interest of justice to allow the management to consider and enquire into charges afresh, or to allow petitioner an opportunity to defended himself after almost two decades. Whereas charge Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the alleged misconduct before petitioner was appointed and confirmed as L. T. grade teacher ; charge Nos. 4 and 5 are not serious enough to warrant any major penalty ; explanation has been given to charge nos. 3 and 6 which cannot be disbelieved. It will be too harsh for petitioner to face an inquiry after a period of 22 years in respect of these charges. I, therefore, find that, interest of justice will be served in case the matter rests here. ( 17 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The orders dated 27. 7. 1985, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, order dated 30. 1. 1981, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, and the resolution dated 28. 11. 1980 of the committee of management of Sri Shiv Pratap Singh Inter College, Pawai Kalan, District mirzapur, are quashed. Petitioner shall be allowed to teach and work in the institution and shall be paid the entire arrears of salary and allowance, taking Into consideration the revision in the grades and allowances from time to time. He shall also be entitled to promotion in accordance with his seniority to be determined as if the impugned orders were not issued. These directions shall be carried out in three months. Respondent No. 3 Is directed to pay costs of this petition to petitioner.