JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these writ petitions filed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi are connected with each other and, therefore, as requested by the learned Counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi aggrieved by the orders dated 6.3.2003 passed by the committee of management terminating him and dated 4.11.2003 of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya according approval to the said termination has filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that Pandit Nehru Madhyamik Vidyalay (hereinafter referred to as ‘School’) is a Junior High School recognized by the Board of Education under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Act’) and salary to the teachers and staff is being paid under the provisions of U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1978 Act’) and other terms and conditions of recruitment etc. are governed by U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1978 Rules’). The petitioner was appointed on 1.9.1978 as Assistant Teacher in the school. The management (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 3) communicated an order dated 6.3.2003 to the petitioner terminating him with effect from 5.2.2003 whereagainst he made a representation before the District Basic Education Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent No. 2’) on 13.3.2003 alleging that termination without prior approval is illegal and, therefore, the alleged termination order be set aside and he may be treated in service and be paid salary. Assailing the order dated 6.3.2003, the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 18426 of 2003. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, the respondent No. 2 has issued the order dated 4.11.2003 granting approval to the termination of the petitioner’s service whereagainst the writ petition No. 50316 of 2003 has been filed. 4. On behalf of respondent No. 3, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the school has 11 teachers including a Principal and imparting education from class 6th to 8th. A complaint was made on 2.1.2003 by one Dilip Kumar that his daughter Kr. 4. On behalf of respondent No. 3, a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the school has 11 teachers including a Principal and imparting education from class 6th to 8th. A complaint was made on 2.1.2003 by one Dilip Kumar that his daughter Kr. Rani Devi, a student of class 7th-B was misbehaved by the petitioner on 1.1.2003 and, therefore suitable action be taken against him. The Manager of the School, by order dated 4.1.2003 required the Head Master to take necessary action. An explanation was sought by the Principal from the petitioner vide letter dated 7.11.2003. The petitioner instead of submitting any reply sent a letter dated 10.1.2003 requesting that a copy of the complaint, if any, be furnished to him whereafter he would submit his reply. The Principal then issued notice/charge-sheet dated 22.1.2003 containing allegation of misbehaviour with a girl student in the school and said that the copy of the complaint would not be supplied in order to maintain confidentiality and in the interest of the student concerned. 5. The petitioner despite receipt of the said notice did not submit any reply and instead sent a letter dated 25.1.2003 seeking further time. Ultimately he sent reply dated 28.1.2003 denying allegations, requiring the Principal to provide details of the complaint and name of the girl student so that he may submit his further reply. He also made aspersion on the Principal. The Principal wrote a letter dated 28.1.2003 requesting the Manager to get enquiry conducted through a sub-committee since the petitioner has levelled allegations against him. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 passed a resolution constituting a sub-committee consisting of Ravindra Babu Chaubey, Onkar Singh, Shyam Babu Dixit, Shiv Ram Pathak and Akhilesh Tiwari, who were to hold a departmental enquiry and submit report. The enquiry sub-committee issued a notice dated 4.2.2003 fixing 7.2.2003 as the date of oral enquiry requiring the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 7.2.2003 at 10.00 A.M. at the School premises. The petitioner appeared on 7.2.2003 and his statement was recorded by the enquiry sub-committee wherein again he demanded copy of the complaint which was accepted by the enquiry sub-committee and vide letter dated 24.2.2003 a photocopy of the complaint was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared on 7.2.2003 and his statement was recorded by the enquiry sub-committee wherein again he demanded copy of the complaint which was accepted by the enquiry sub-committee and vide letter dated 24.2.2003 a photocopy of the complaint was supplied to the petitioner. Enquiry sub committee thereafter fixed 27.2.2003 for oral enquiry but the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry sub-committee on the said date when the statement of Sri Dilip Kumar, complainant, and father of the girl student was recorded. Thereafter, the enquiry sub-committee submitted its report holding charge of misbehaviour with the girl student proved. Since, the matter was serious, and charge was also found proved against the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 decided to terminate him and passed order to this effect on 6.3.2003 and also sent a copy thereof to the Respondent No. 2, who issued notice dated 28.10.2003 fixing 3.11.2003 giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his defence but he did not avail such opportunity. Respondent No. 2 sent letter dated 4.11.2003 granting approval to the decision of the respondent No. 3 for imposing punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 passed a resolution on 16.11.2003 dismissing the petitioner and the same was communicated vide letter dated 17.11.2003. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 also wherein it has been stated that notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.10.2003 giving him opportunity to place his defence but he did not avail such opportunity and thereafter the order granting approval was passed on 4.11.2003. 7. Sri Y.K. Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 granting approval is vitiated in law being a non-speaking and unreasoned order and placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Committee of Management v. DIOS and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226. He further contended that the entire proceedings against him are vitiated in law since Dilip Kumar subsequently gave an affidavit dated 16.1.2003 stating that his daughter was not misbehaved but was only scolded by the petitioner and he has not made any complaint, therefore, no action was required thereon. He has contended that in view of the aforesaid affidavit, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. He has contended that in view of the aforesaid affidavit, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. He further contended that the termination order dated 6.3.2003 is void ab initio since it was issued without any prior approval of respondent No. 2 and therefore the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, stated the order dated 6.3.2003 was a tentative decision and was never given effect to treating it to be a proposal of dismissal of service of the petitioner. It was sent to respondent No. 2 with all other relevant records and it is only when the respondent No. 2 communicated his approval, a dismissal order was passed vide resolution dated 16.11.2003 communicating him on 17.11.2003, copies whereof have been placed as Annexures-18 and 19 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3. Since the petitioner has neither challenged the same nor disputed receipt of the said order, it is said that the writ petition as such is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The leaned Counsel for the respondents have conceded that the order dated 6.3.2003 by itself was not given effect to and that was treated to be only a proposal of termination of service of the petitioner and the same could have been given effect to after approval is accorded by the respondent No. 2 and it is also conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the service of the petitioner was not terminated on 6.3.2003 but after the approval was accorded ‘ by respondent No. 2 on 4.11.2003, the respondent No. 3 passed a fresh resolution on 16.11.2003 and dismissed the petitioner which was communicated vide letter dated 17.11.2003. In this view of the matter, the writ petition No. 18426 of 2003 partly succeeds to the extent that the order dated 6.3.2003 shall not have the effect of terminating the services of the petitioner and is declared to be only a proposal sent to the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya for his approval and till the approval is granted and fresh order of termination is passed, the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits under the Rules. 11. 11. Now coming to the second writ petition, which involves more serious question regarding the validity of the approval accorded by respondent No. 2 to the proposal of respondent No. 3 for termination of service of the petitioner and consequential order passed by the respondent No. 3, this Court has to consider the issue in the light of the fact that the petitioner is a teacher in a Junior High School where the students of innocent and adolescent age are studying. The School being co-educational, the students are both girls and boys. It is situated in a rural area of District Auraiya. The age of the students is such that a reason for making a false complaint by a girl student is neither expected nor has been suggested by the petitioner. The Court is conscious of the fact that a teacher in Indian society has been elevated as ‘God’ namely. ^xq:j czãk xq:j fo".kq xq:j nsoks egsoj%^ A teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and equip the students, girls or the boys with ability, knowledge, discipline and intellect to enable them to face the challenges of their life. He is preserver of learning and destroys ignorance. Therefore as a member of noble teaching profession he should be a role model and either individually or collectively as a community of teachers should regenerate dedication with the bend of spiritualism in broader perspective to establish quality, competence, character and capacity of the students for successful working of democratic institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher even the best education system is bound to fail. Therefore, it is the duty of teacher to take care of pupils as a careful parent would take of its children. In Indian society education amongst girls even after independence is wanton due to various factors including rural, culture and other factors. Education to the girls children is national asset and foundation of fertile human resources and disciplined family management apart from their equal participation in socio-economic and political democracy. Of late people have realized and started sending their girl children to co-educational institutions under the care of proper management to look after the welfare and safety of the girls. Education to the girls children is national asset and foundation of fertile human resources and disciplined family management apart from their equal participation in socio-economic and political democracy. Of late people have realized and started sending their girl children to co-educational institutions under the care of proper management to look after the welfare and safety of the girls. Therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on the management of the school and college to protect young children in particular the chastity of girls bringing them up in discipline and dedicated pursuit of excellence and to protect them from all kinds of evils in the institution as well as outside. The teachers who are kept in-charge bear higher responsibilities and should be more careful. His character and conduct should be alike Rishi and as loco parentis. It goes thus without saying where a teacher fails to maintain such high standard is not befitted to his status. 12. However, the conduct of a person, before condemnation and taking further action, that too a punitive one, deserves a right of defence consistent with the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’. The compliance of principles of natural justice is a necessary concomitant of our legal system and application of rule of law unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication. It is for this reason that the rules have been framed in respect to teachers of the primary schools giving them due opportunity of hearing before taking a punitive action against them. The scope of judicial review in such matter however is confined to the question as to whether the proceedings have been conducted observing due procedure of law giving adequate opportunity of defence to the petitioner and whether all the conditions precedent provided under the statute required before imposing punishment have been observed. Rules 15 and 16 of 1978 Rules deal with the disciplinary proceedings and termination of a Head Master or Assistant Teacher of a recognized Junior High School and are reproduced as under : "15. Rules 15 and 16 of 1978 Rules deal with the disciplinary proceedings and termination of a Head Master or Assistant Teacher of a recognized Junior High School and are reproduced as under : "15. Termination of service.—No Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer : Provided that in the case of Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher of a minority institution the approval of the District Basic Education Officer shall not be necessary. 16. Disciplinary proceedings.—In respect of disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, of a recognised school shall be governed by the rules applicable to Headmaster and Assistant Teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board." 13. Thus, no Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed from service except with the prior approval in writing of District Basic Education Officer. For the procedure of disciplinary proceedings and the punishments which may be inflicted upon a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, the rules applicable to the persons working in a Basic School maintained by the Board have been made applicable. This brings into picture U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1973 Rules’) Rule-3 provides for punishment which may be imposed by the appointing authority for good and sufficient reasons which includes removal and dismissal from service, and Rules 5(3) provides that procedure laid down in Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 as applicable to the servants of U.P. Government, shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings under the said rules. Rule 5(3) relevant for the purpose of the present case may be reproduced as under : “5. (3) The procedure laid down in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations under these rules." 14. Rule 5(3) relevant for the purpose of the present case may be reproduced as under : “5. (3) The procedure laid down in the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as far as possible, be followed in disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations under these rules." 14. Thus, the procedure for disciplinary proceedings in case of a teacher of a recognized Junior High School, in so far as may be possible, will be such as applicable to a Government servant. Therefore, this Court has to consider whether such procedure prescribed in law has been followed by the respondent in issuing the order impugned in the writ petition. 15. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the committee of management, the appointing authority, appointed an enquiry sub-committee which adopted a strange procedure inasmuch on the first date of oral hearing, i.e., 7.2.2003 it recorded statement of the petitioner itself, who denied allegations and said that there is no such complaint made by anyone. The enquiry sub-committee decided to supply photocopy of the complaint of Sri Dilip Kumar and fixed 27.2.2003 vide notice dated 24.2.2003. The petitioner has categorically stated in para-6 of rejoinder affidavit that the alleged notice dated 24.2.2003 was served upon him by registered post in the evening of 27.2.2003 and thus there was no occasion for him to appear before the enquiry sub-committee on 27.2.2003. He has said that he immediately informed the enquiry sub-committee on 28.2.2003 sending a letter by post but did not receive any information and the enquiry sub-committee submitted its report on 28.2.2003 itself without giving any opportunity of reply to the petitioner. With respect to the notice sent by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner in para-10 of the rejoinder affidavit has said that the notice dated 28.10.2003 was received by him on 6.11.2003 though the letter of approval was issued by respondent No. 2 on 4.11.2003 itself and therefore it cannot be said that he was given sufficient opportunity either by respondent No. 3 or by respondent No. 2 at any stage. Though the aforesaid averments have been made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit, but it was served upon the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 on 13.4.2004 and despite thereof he has not denied the said averments by filing any supplementary counter affidavit or placing any other material on record. In this view of the matter, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been conducted against the petitioner in a fair and reasonable manner giving adequate opportunity of defence to him. On the contrary, it appears that the authorities have acted at in a hurried manner, giving a short time and without ensuring whether the information sent to the petitioner has actually reached him. It is no doubt true, if the information would have been served upon the petitioner well in time and, if he would not have participated, no exception could have been taken on the ground that the proceedings have been conducted expeditiously but where the petitioner has specifically pleaded that he did not receive information before time or well in time and the authorities have proceeded without ensuring whether the information has been received by the petitioner about the date of enquiry, and there is nothing to contradict the same, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that adequate opportunity of defence has been afforded and this vitiates the entire proceedings. 16. Moreover, the order of approval passed by the District Basic Education Officer also does not show that he has considered all the aspects as to whether due procedure has been observed by the management before resolving to impose punishment and, therefore, the impugned order dated 4.11.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 shows non-application of mind and is vitiated being an unreasoned and non-speaking order. 17. A pari materia provision, i.e., Section 16(G-7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that no order of suspension unless approved in writing by the inspector shall remain in force for more than 60 days. A Division Bench in Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226, took the view that the order of Inspector granting or refusing approval must contain brief reasons for according or refusing to accord its approval although a detailed order is not required. A Division Bench in Committee of Management Sri Mahanthu Radha Krishna Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1988 UPLBEC 226, took the view that the order of Inspector granting or refusing approval must contain brief reasons for according or refusing to accord its approval although a detailed order is not required. The necessity of recording reasons all the more necessary since such an order has the effect on the rights of the party or party and thus though the Act specifically does not require the authority to give reasons for granting or refusing to accord approval, but since he exercises supervisory power, recording of reasons is necessary in order to show that he has not acted arbitrarily and has applied his mind while according or refusing approval. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, the order of granting approval passed by the respondent No. 2 which is also non-speaking and unreasoned, cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the writ petition No. 18426 of 2003 partly succeeds and is disposed of with a declaration that the letter dated 6.3.2003 is not an order of termination but a proposal sent to District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya for approval and, therefore, the petitioner would be deemed to continue in service till appropriate order is passed by the committee of management after having prior approval from the respondent No. 2 and he is also entitled for all consequential benefits. 19. The writ petition No. 50316 of 2003, in view of the discussions made above is allowed. The disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner are in violation of principle of natural justice, hence, are illegal and vitiated in law. The same stands quashed. The order dated 4.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 according his approval is also quashed being an unreasoned and non speaking order. The consequential order passed by respondent No. 3 pursuant to the order dated 4.11.2003, therefore, also fails and would be of no consequence. The same stands quashed. The order dated 4.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 according his approval is also quashed being an unreasoned and non speaking order. The consequential order passed by respondent No. 3 pursuant to the order dated 4.11.2003, therefore, also fails and would be of no consequence. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except arrears of salary in respect whereto the respondents may pass appropriate order in accordance with relevant rules, namely, Rule-4 of U.P Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 read with Fundamental Rule 54-A. However, since the charge levelled against the petitioner is serious, the respondents are at liberty to hold fresh departmental proceedings in accordance with law and pass order afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. ———