JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard Sri K.C. Srivastava and Sri S.P. Singh learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Onkar Nath Tewari who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and Sri Vijay Bajpai for opposite party No. 4. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Gramodaya Kisan Vidyalaya Karauli Pilkhanwan of district Faizabad in July, 1972. Later on he was promoted as Headmaster in the year 1981. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner. A charge-sheet was served against him on 6.12.1983. There were eleven charges against the Petitioner, based on oral and documentary evidence. The Petitioner was required to submit his explanation by 5.12.1983. In fact the charge-sheet was signed and issued on 3.12.1983. All the eleven charges have been quoted in para 4 of the writ petition. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 8.12.1983. According to the management of the college, no reply to the charge-sheet was received by them and they had proceeded ex parte against the Petitioner. The Petitioner's services were terminated on 12.12.1983 by the Manager of the College. The order of removal/termination is quoted below. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, no enquiry was at all held by the Petitioner. It was not provided with the documents cited in the charge-sheet. No statement of witnesses was provided to him. No date, place and time of the enquiry was fixed nor any enquiry was conducted by the management to prove the charges and instantly the order of removal was passed on 12.12.1983. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad was not obtained before terminating the services of the Petitioner and the whole action is violative under Rule 12 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teacher) Rules, 1978. Since at the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as Headmaster and as such approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari was condition precedent, before removing the Petitioner from services. In support of his submission, Sri S.P. Singh has relied upon the following decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Nayan Shukla v. District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur and Anr. Since at the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as Headmaster and as such approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari was condition precedent, before removing the Petitioner from services. In support of his submission, Sri S.P. Singh has relied upon the following decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Nayan Shukla v. District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur and Anr. 1981 UPLBEC 127 and Ganga Singh v. Sri Ram Adhar Dixit, Manager, Janta Junior High School, Etah and Ors. 2002 (5) AWC 3580 : 2002 (4) ESC 615 (All ) to demonstrate that the order was wholly illegal, null and void. 5. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner. The order is non speaking and non-reasoned order under law. In the present circumstances when the reply to the charge-sheet was not available, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix date, place and time of hearing and prove the charges framed against the Petitioner. All the 11 charges are based on the reports of individuals, students and teacher etc. These persons were not examined to prove their complaints. Thus, the material reports, complaints which have not been proved by their authors cannot be used against the Petitioner behind his back. It was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to fix date, place and time of enquiry and to afford opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. The order is violative of principle of natural justice. Sri S.P. Singh has also placed reliance upon the following decisions in Hanuman Prasad Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Banda and others, (1999) 3 AWC 2161 , Mohammad Abbas v. Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Anr. 1999 (17) LCD 1346 ; Hari Nath Singh Yadav Vs. Administrator/Chairman, Provincial Co-operative Federation and others, (2000) 2 AWC 1534 and Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., (2003) 1 AWC 704 in support of his case. 6. Sri Onkar Nath Tewari has strenuously urged that the Petitioner had no right to hold the post. He was merely an ad hoc employee and had no right to continue on the post. His service is terminable at any time without notice. The Management has given him opportunity of hearing by issuing charge-sheet. The Petitioner failed to submit his reply. Sri Onkar Nath Tewari has strenuously urged that the Petitioner had no right to hold the post. He was merely an ad hoc employee and had no right to continue on the post. His service is terminable at any time without notice. The Management has given him opportunity of hearing by issuing charge-sheet. The Petitioner failed to submit his reply. In these circumstances, there was no option left with the management to terminate the service of the Petitioner. He was found unfit and unsuitable for the job. There was no illegality or infirmity in the order. Sri Onkar Nath Tewari has tried to convince the Court that since the Petitioner was an ad hoc Headmaster and as such no prior approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad was required before terminating his services or passing the order of removal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A bare reading of the impugned order makes it amply clear that it is a non-reasoned, non-speaking and bald order. In the present case, the charge-sheet was signed and issued on 3.12.1983 and the delinquent employee was required to submit his reply to the management by 5th December. The charge-sheet was served on 5.12.1983 after the dead line was over. The Petitioner had submitted his reply on 8.12.1983. Even if reply was not available with the Enquiry Officer or punishing authority, it was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to have fixed date, place and time for enquiry. A perusal of charge-sheet reveals that there were 11 charges against the Petitioner. The management had relied on oral testimony and statement of Maya Ram Verma, Sakshya Prabandhak, statements of assistant teachers, students of the institution, Udai Bhan Singh's statement and the statement given by Bhooti Prasad, Manager and the clerks. The removal/termination order does not indicate as to when and how these persons were examined by the Enquiry Officer and what statement were made by these persons at the time of formal and regular enquiry. It is amply clear that in fact these witnesses cited in the charge-sheet were not examined by the Enquiry Officer and within seven days the enquiry has been completed, instantly and immediately the order of removal was passed on 12.12.1983. 9. It is amply clear that in fact these witnesses cited in the charge-sheet were not examined by the Enquiry Officer and within seven days the enquiry has been completed, instantly and immediately the order of removal was passed on 12.12.1983. 9. Relying upon the aforementioned decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the view that the Petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforementioned decisions. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner to let him meet his case effectively. It is evident from the record that the approval of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad has also not been sought. The management has violated the provisions contained in the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and due to this reason the order of removal/termination is wholly illegal, unjust and improper. 10. There are several other illegalities and infirmity in the enquiry in issuing the order of removal but it can be quashed on the above main grounds argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order of termination dated 12.12.1983 passed by the Manager, Gramodaya Kisan Vidyalaya Karalui Pilkhanwan, district Faizabad. The Petitioner shall be reinstated in service as Headmaster in Gramodaya Kisan Vidyalaya Karalui Pilkhanwan, district Faizabad. The consequence shall follow.