( 1 ) HEARD Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Commission and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, for the Committee of Management. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29th January, 1988 passed by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) communicated by letter dated 1st February, 1988 granting approval to dismissal of the petitioner as contemplated under Section 21 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was working as Headmaster of a High School. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Committee of Management. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 7th July, 1984. After the suspension Inquiry Committee was constituted to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. The charges were framed and the charge-sheet was tendered to the petitioner which was not accepted. Thereafter the same was pasted on the door. The charge-sheet was also sent by registered letter, which returned with the endorsement "refused" of the postal authority. The petitioner having not participated before the Inquiry Committee, the report was submitted by the Inquiry Committee on 24th August, 1984. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 25th August, 1984 asking the petitioner to appear before the disciplinary authority on 2. 9. 1984. The said notice was also published in the newspaper "dainik Jagran" on 29th August, 1984. The petitioner did not appear before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority passed a resolution on 2. 9. 1984 resolving to dismiss the petitioner from service. The resolution of the Committee of Management for dismissal was forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools to the Commission. The Commission heard the matter and by the impugned order has accorded its approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management. ( 4 ) SRI Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, has raised following submissions:- (i) The constitution of the Inquiry Committee was vitiated since the petitioner has lodged a first information report against J. B. L. Gupta, who was convener of the Inquiry Committee on 23rd August, 1984. (ii) The petitioner was not given any opportunity by the Inquiry Committee or the disciplinary authority to have his say. (ii) The petitioner was not given any opportunity by the Inquiry Committee or the disciplinary authority to have his say. The entire inquiry proceedings were vitiated on account of the aforesaid error and the order of Commission approving the said resolution is not sustainable. (iii) There is violation of Regulation 37 Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 since no opportunity was given by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record. ( 6 ) THE detail facts of the case have been noted in the order of the Commission filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After suspension of the petitioner, charge-sheet was drawn and was pasted on the door and also sent through registered post since the petitioner was not receiving the same. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that constitution of the Inquiry Committee was vitiated since JBL Gupta, who was appointed as convener, was inimical to the petitioner and the petitioner lodged a first information report against him on 23rd August, 1984. The Committee of Management passed a resolution on 7. 7. 1984 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. By the same resolution the three members Inquiry Committee was constituted as contemplated under Regulation 35 of Chapter III. The first information report, which is being said by the petitioner to be lodged against Sri J> B> L> Gupta was lodged on 23rd August, 1984, i. e. , much after the Inquiry Committee was constituted. The Inquiry Committee having been constituted on 7. 7. 1984 any subsequent lodging of the first information report by the petitioner against Sri J. B. L. Gupta cannot vitiate his nomination as convener of the Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sri J. B. L. Gupta has also lodged a first information report on 19th December, 1984. The Commission in the order impugned has also noticed the fact that Inquiry Committee was constituted by the same resolution dated 7. 7. 1984. In view of this, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) THE second submission of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given by the Inquiry Committee to have his say and the charge-sheet was not served upon him. The order of the Commission notes the detail facts in this regard. 7. 1984. In view of this, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) THE second submission of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given by the Inquiry Committee to have his say and the charge-sheet was not served upon him. The order of the Commission notes the detail facts in this regard. It is the case of the Committee of Management that charge-sheet was tendered personally to petitioner, which was refused in presence of several employees of the institution, who had appeared before the Inquiry Committee and supported the case. The registered letter by which charge-sheet was sent also returned with the endorsement of postal authorities as refused. The charge-sheet having been tendered to the petitioner, which has not been accepted, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was not given opportunity. ( 8 ) THE submission of the petitioner that disciplinary authority has not given any opportunity to the petitioner is also belied. After receiving the inquiry report, show cause notice was issued on 24th August, 1984 asking the petitioner to show cause in the meeting specially convened on 2. 9. 1984. Apart from sending the said notice, the same was also published in the newspaper "dainik Jagran" dated 29th August, 1984 at page 6 of the newspaper. The Commission has noticed this fact. In view of the above the petitioner cannot say that Committee did not give any opportunity to him. Thus notice as contemplated under Regulation 37, Chapter-III was duly given to the petitioner and after issuing notice the Committee deliberated and approved the resolution. Thus the argument that Regulation 37 of Chapter-III was violated cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that Sri J. B. L. Gupta acted as a witness as well as Inquiry Officer. He submits that the factum that charge-sheet was tendered to the petitioner was noted by J. B. L. Gupta himself in the inquiry report. From the above it cannot be said that J. B. L. Gupta appeared as witness in the inquiry. The noticing of fact by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report that charge-sheet was tendered to the petitioner which was refused in presence of several employees cannot be said to be any defect in the inquiry. From the above it cannot be said that J. B. L. Gupta appeared as witness in the inquiry. The noticing of fact by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report that charge-sheet was tendered to the petitioner which was refused in presence of several employees cannot be said to be any defect in the inquiry. ( 10 ) NO error has been pointed out in the disciplinary inquiry or in the order passed by the Commission approving the proposal. No ground is made out to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. .