JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India lays challenge to order dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby services of the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher (in short, 'PET') on PTA basis at Government Middle School, Jangla, came to be terminated pursuant to enquiry conducted by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, District Chamba, on his own complaint. 2. Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was given appointment as a PET by respondent No.4 on 2.11.2006. On 22.3.2011, petitioner on account of his alleged maltreatment and mental harassment by some of his colleagues, lodged complaint with the SDM Bhattiyat, District Chamba, (Annexure P-2), which initially came to be enquired into by Principal of the School concerned. In the aforesaid complaint, petitioner besides alleging mental harassment also alleged that on 21.3.2011, he reached school late on account of illness but he was not permitted to mark his attendance with a view to harass him. Besides above, petitioner also alleged that staff of school oftenly threatened to get him ousted from the school, as a result of which he is under great mental stress. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with internal enquiry conducted by Principal of school concerned, matter subsequently came to be enquired into by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, District Chamba, on his own request, as is evident from Annexure P-3. Deputy Director of Elementary Education after having conducted enquiry concluded in his report dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P-4) that since conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, his continuation in the School concerned will not be in the interest of school. Besides this, Deputy Director of Elementary Education also observed that the conduct of petitioner was not good and he remained wilfully absent on 23.3.2011, 26.3.2011, 28.3.2011 and 31.3.2011. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid enquiry conducted by Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Chamba, Principal GSSS Parchore, District Chamba, under whose control, Government Middle School, Jangla falls, directed respondent No.4 to immediately dispense with the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 27.6.2011 (Annexure P-5). In compliance of aforesaid order, President SMC vide order dated 5.7.2011 Annexure P-6 terminated the service of the petitioner from the post of PET in Government Middle School, Jangla. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner approached this Court, praying for following reliefs: "a) That the inquiry conducted by respondents no. In compliance of aforesaid order, President SMC vide order dated 5.7.2011 Annexure P-6 terminated the service of the petitioner from the post of PET in Government Middle School, Jangla. In the aforesaid backdrop, petitioner approached this Court, praying for following reliefs: "a) That the inquiry conducted by respondents no. 2 and 3 (Annexure-P/4 and Annexure-P/5) and further on the recommendations of respondents no.2 and 3 terminating the petitioner from service by respondent no.4 (Annexure-P/6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) respondents be directed not to appoint/engage any Physical Education Teacher in place of the petitioner." 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parries and perused the material available on record this court find that the petitioner after having been appointed as PET on PTA basis continued uninterruptedly for ten years without there being any complaint prior to termination order dated 5.7.2011. Though, in the case at hand, petitioner on 22.3.2011 made a complaint with regard to mental harassment being meted to him by his colleagues in the school but Deputy Director of Elementary Education, District Chamba, while conducting enquiry qua the allegations contained in the complaint of the petitioner, unilaterally concluded that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in service. While drawing aforesaid conclusion, Deputy Director of Elementary Education besides having taken note of statements made by staff of school with regard to conduct of the petitioner, also took note of his wilful absence from school on 23.3.2011, 26.3.2011, 28.3.2011 and 31.3.2011, which was admittedly not the subject matter of the complaint. Interestingly, Deputy Director of Elementary Education, while conducting enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner sidetracked from controversy in issue, as raised by petitioner and on the basis of evidence brought on record by School Management Committee proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty without affording opportunity of hearing. 5. True it is that perusal of enquiry report, annexure P-4, suggests that the statement of petitioner was also recorded but since during enquiry some adverse material emerged against the petitioner, enquiry officer, before drawing any conclusion, ought to have afforded opportunity to the petitioner, especially with regard to his alleged wilful absence from the school on the dates mentioned above. 6. 6. Though enquiry report reveals that the petitioner, while denying all the charges levelled against him by the staff and School Management Committee, admitted his wilful absence from the school on the dates mentioned herein above, but such admission was not sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the petitioner, especially when there was no material available on record that notice, if any, was ever issued by the school to the petitioner qua his wilful absence on the dates mentioned above. 7. Otherwise also, statements made by witnesses adduced on record by School Management at the time of enquiry, gist whereof is given in equity report, if are read in their entirety, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the entire staff of the school ganged up against the petitioner and the enquiry officer, while sidetracking from the controversy proceeded to hold petitioner guilty merely on the basis of allegations levelled by witnesses cited by the School Management that too without there being any documentary evidence available on record. 8. Otherwise also, very preface of enquiry report suggests that an enquiry was being conducted by Deputy Director of Elementary Education with regard to complaint received from the petitioner and at that time there was no complaint, if any, with the enquiry officer with regard to conduct of the petitioner which could have weighed heavily with the enquiry officer to hold the petitioner guilty. 9. Material on record though reveals that the petitioner used to threaten and quarrel with colleagues on petty issues but since it was not part of the enquiry, Deputy Director of Elementary Education ought not have gone into that aspect of the matter, rather, after emergence of some material against the petitioner, he ought to have either issued show cause to the petitioner or should have restricted himself to the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint. 10. However, this Court having taken note of the documents available on record, suggestive of the fact that the that petitioner after filing complaint had tendered apology, but since matter ultimately came to be decided by enquiry officer, there appears to be no justification/occasion for this Court to go into that aspect of the matter. 10. However, this Court having taken note of the documents available on record, suggestive of the fact that the that petitioner after filing complaint had tendered apology, but since matter ultimately came to be decided by enquiry officer, there appears to be no justification/occasion for this Court to go into that aspect of the matter. However, certainly the procedure adopted by enquiry officer while conducting enquiry by no stretch of imagination can be said to be fair rather mala fides and prejudice against the petitioner are writ large in the enquiry report. 11. Enquiry by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 is absolutely one-sided and appears to have been conducted in a prejudicial manner just to ensure ouster of the petitioner from the School in question. Enquiry officer solely relied upon statements of witnesses produced by management in its support without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut allegations levelled against him by School Management during enquiry. Leaving everything aside, enquiry stands vitiated on account of non-adherence of principles of natural justice as is clearly evident from the record. 12. Having taken note of the aforesaid procedural lapses committed by the enquiry officer, while removing the petitioner from his post, this court finds sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned annexure P-5 dated 27.6.2011, while exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Order dated 27.6.2011 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. All pending applications are also disposed of.