JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Kishan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mathauli Bazar, District Deoria is a recognised Junior High School. The Committee of Management of the said Institution has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 1.5.1986 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Deoria (now district Kushinagar) and dated 5.8.1987 passed by Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : Respondent No. 3 was working as Headmaster in the said Institution. The Committee on allegations of financial and other irregularities, against the said Headmaster, suspended the said respondent No. 3 under a resolution dated 7.4.1986. A charge sheet was served upon the respondent No. 3 on 1.5.1986. According to the Committee of Management, despite time being granted to submit reply to the charge sheet, the respondent No. 3 did not respond. An enquiry committee was constituted for the purpose of submitting its report. The Enquiry Committee held the respondent No. 3 guilty of the charges levelled. On receipt of the Enquiry Report, the Management of the Institution issued a letter to the respondent intimating that he may attend the meeting of the Managing Committee scheduled to take place on 22.6.1980 and reply to charges. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also forwarded to him with an opportunity to have his say. The respondent No. 3 is stated to ignored the said notice. He did not appear before the Committee of management. 2. Taking into consideration, the Enquiry Report and the serious charges levelled against him found proved, the Committee of Management resolved to propose the punishment of dismissal from service. The resolution dated 22.6.1986 was forwarded to the B.S.A. in accordance with the provision of Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978. 3. The B.S.A. vide order dated 26.9.1986 disapproved the proposed punishment on the finding that the respondent No. 3 has expressed regrets for the mistake committed earlier and that he shall be more careful and disciplined in future. 4. 3. The B.S.A. vide order dated 26.9.1986 disapproved the proposed punishment on the finding that the respondent No. 3 has expressed regrets for the mistake committed earlier and that he shall be more careful and disciplined in future. 4. Not being satisfied with the order so passed, the Committee of Management preferred an appeal against the said order before the Basic Shiksha Parishad in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 read with Rule 12 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1983. The appeal so preferred has been rejected under the order of the Chairman of the Board dated 5.8.1987. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned are unsustainable in the eyes of law for three reasons: (a) The Basic Shiksha Parishad could have considered as to whether the disciplinary proceedings have been held as per the procedure and as to whether the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management is commensurate to the charges found proved and could the apology expressed by the Headmaster result in the order of disapproving. (b) The B.S.A. Deoria now Kushi Nagar has no authority of law to accept any regrets from the teacher concerned and thereafter to disapprove the proposed punishment only on the assurance given. (c) So far as the appellate order is concerned, it is pointed that none of the pleas raised by the Committee of Management have been examined. 6. Shri S.N. Shukla, counsel for the respondent No. 3 in reply contends that the appeal as preferred by the petitioner itself was not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shobhamal v. Director of Basic Education. He further points out that both the B.S.A and the appellate authority have specifically held that the Committee of Management did not supply the evidence, both oral as well as documentary proposed to rehear to the respondent No. 3. Therefore, on this ground alone the entire enquiry stands initiated. He further points out that both the B.S.A and the appellate authority have specifically held that the Committee of Management did not supply the evidence, both oral as well as documentary proposed to rehear to the respondent No. 3. Therefore, on this ground alone the entire enquiry stands initiated. He further refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) AIR 853, wherein it has been held that even in the matter of ex parte departmental enquiry, it is mandatory that evidence must be led so that the charges are brought home. It is contended that for any document to be accepted in evidence for bringing home the charge, it is mandatory that the same must be proved before the Enquiry Officer, with opportunity to the employee concerned to challenge authenticity as well as the facts recorded therein. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , wherein it has been held that relevant documents relied upon for bringing home the charge if not provided to the employee concerned, would be denial of reasonable opportunity and shall render the order of punishment illegal. It is also pointed out that the charge sheet itself was bad and for the purpose reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, S.B. Inter College, Lahuakalan v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others, 1950-91 (4) AIEC 335 and is also upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vishnu Deo Tiwari v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others, 1999 (3) ESC 1681 (All). He lastly stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath (supra) restrained the State Government from holding any fresh enquiry against the employee concerned having regard to the long period that had lapsed in between. He submits that similar direction be issued in the facts of this case also. 7. He lastly stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath (supra) restrained the State Government from holding any fresh enquiry against the employee concerned having regard to the long period that had lapsed in between. He submits that similar direction be issued in the facts of this case also. 7. Shri A.N. Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that even assuming without admitting that there was some deficiency in the Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 6.3.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34735 of 2007, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari should have restored the enquiry proceedings from the stage, it had gone bad. The employee concerned cannot be said to have been exonerated of the charges because of defect in the enquiry. He, therefore, submits that this Court may set aside the impugned order and permit the Committee of Management to hold an enquiry from the stage, charge sheet was served upon the petitioner afresh. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 9. This Court may record that the charge sheet issued to the respondent No. 3 dated 1.5.1986, contained as many as 15 charges which included the charge of misappropriation of money. Charge sheet did not refer to any evidence oral or documentary proposed to be relied upon. The enquiry proceeded ex parte as the respondent No. 3 did not respond to the notice. The Enquiry Report is stated to have been forwarded to the petitioner by the Manager with an opportunity to appear before the Committee of Management to which the respondent No. 3 did not respond. 10. However from the documents, which form part of the appeal, filed by the Committee of Management against the order of the B.S.A. disapproving the punishment, this Court finds that a large number of documents were relied upon for establishing the charge (reference to ground No. 3 of the memo of appeal). The management had relied upon 21 pieces of evidence for establishing the charge against the respondent No. 3 but such material was not forwarded to the petitioner. The management had relied upon 21 pieces of evidence for establishing the charge against the respondent No. 3 but such material was not forwarded to the petitioner. There is absolutely no averment or material on record which can establish that the evidence was ever brought to the knowledge of the respondent No. 3 or he was afforded an opportunity to controvert the same. Nor it is recorded that any date was fixed by the Enquiry Committee for recording the evidence with due information to the respondent No. 3. 11. This Court therefore holds that the B.S.A. is justified in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated as the relevant evidence proposed to be relied upon was not enclosed with the charge sheet and even otherwise not brought to the knowledge of the employee concerned. 12. This Court with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227 , holds that even if the employee is guilty of not responding to the charge memo, yet he should have been informed of the day on which the evidence was to be led for bringing home the charge and such evidence should have been brought to knowledge of the employee concerned with an opportunity to convert the same. 13. The Court finds that the Enquiry Committee has failed to conduct the proceedings in the manner contemplated under law. 14. Although there may not be statutory rules regulating the disciplinary proceedings in respect of teachers of recognised Junior High School, this Court is of the firm opinion that principles of natural justice in the matter of disciplinary enquiry require that the evidence, which is to be taken into consideration in support of the charge, must always be communicated to the employee concerned and opportunity should be afforded to him to meet the same. If any oral evidence is to be recorded, there has to be a date and time fixed by the Enquiry Committee after due information to the employee concerned for participation, with an opportunity to cross-examine the witness cornered. 15. For the reasons recorded above this Court has no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the B.S.A. and the appellate authority need not be interfere with as any order to the contrary would result in an illegal being restored action. 16. 15. For the reasons recorded above this Court has no hesitation to hold that the orders passed by the B.S.A. and the appellate authority need not be interfere with as any order to the contrary would result in an illegal being restored action. 16. Now the issue to be considered is as to what should be the ultimate direction in the present writ petition, should the proceedings be directed to be closed because of laps of 24 years from the date charge sheet was served or should this Court insist upon that the proceeding be completed in accordance with law within the time to be specified, the charges levelled against the respondent No. 3 include a charge of misappropriation of money and tampering with records. Respondent No. 3 was holding of post of Headmaster of an institution. An employee hold in such an office must be above board. This Court feels that the enquiry against respondent No. 3 must be directed to be completed in a time bound manner in accordance with the law. 17. There is one more reason for such a direction i.e. this writ petition has remained pending consideration before this Court since 1987. If the Court has not been able to decide the petition for last 23 years no party can be made to suffer for the action or inaction on the part of the Court. 18. In the totality of the circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with the following directions: (A) The Committee of Management may supply the necessary evidence both oral/documentary proposed to rely against the petitioner within four weeks from today. (B) The petitioner will have an opportunity to submit reply of the charge sheet alongwith the evidence relied within four weeks thereafter. (C) A fresh Enquiry Committee may be constituted in the matter. The Enquiry Committee shall hold its meetings after due intimation to the petitioner and shall conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment, within two months from the date it is so constituted. (D) Respondent No. 3 must cooperate in the departmental enquiry. (E) The Enquiry Committee shall record evidence after due intimation to the respondent No. 3. The Enquiry Committee shall hold its meetings after due intimation to the petitioner and shall conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment, within two months from the date it is so constituted. (D) Respondent No. 3 must cooperate in the departmental enquiry. (E) The Enquiry Committee shall record evidence after due intimation to the respondent No. 3. (F) On receipt of the Enquiry report, the petitioner will be afforded opportunity to file his written objection to the enquiry report as well as to appear before the Committee of Management in a meeting to be fixed for the same. (G) The Committee of Management shall take appropriate decision thereafter and shall forward its proposal to the B.S.A. (H) The B.S.A. shall take necessary decision without unnecessary delay in accordance with law within one month from the receipt of the proposal. (I) The respondent No. 3 shall be reinstated within two weeks from today and shall be paid his future salary from the date of joining. (J) The issue with regard to the payment of arrears of salary, if any, shall be examined by the B.S.A. himself at the time of consideration of the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management. 19. Writ petition is disposed of subject to the direction issued above. —————