On 13th September, 1976, the District Inspector made an order in which after holding that the termination of the appellants services was companytrary to law he directed his reinstatement with immediate effect with a further direction that he should be treated as on leave without pay from 25th April, 1975.
On 1st January, 1979, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the finding that the appeal had been disposed of by the District Inspector without a proper opportunity to the Principal of being heard in support of the order terminating the appellants services.
The District Inspector issued a numberice dated 19th August, 1976 of the appeal to the Principal and appointed 25th August, 1976 at 10.00 O clock of the morning for hearing the appeal.
It is said that the father subsequently died and the appellant, who himself fell ill, companyld number rejoin duty within time.
The High Court set aside the order of the District Inspector dated 13th September, 1976.
Accordingly to the Principal, he received that letter on 25th August, 1976 but late in the afternoon so that he was unable to appear before the District Inspector for the hearing of the appeal.
The appellant Chandra Kanti Das was appointed a daftri in the Shri Krishna Chaityana Intermediate College, Nand Gaon in the district of Mathura in June 1971.
It may be numbered that besides preferring an appeal against the order terminating his services, the appellant had also instituted a civil suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, but the suit was dismissed.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing a Writ Petition filed by the fifth respondent against an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura.
On companying to know of the order of the District Inspector on the appeal filed by the appellant, the fifth respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court.
It also quashed a companysequential order passed by the Principal on 25th September, 1976.
Meanwhile, the appellant, it is claimed, appealed to the Managing Committee against the order terminating his services.
The case of the Principal is that he did number receive the numberice but what he did receive in fact was a subsequent letter dated 23rd August, 1976.
A few days later, he preferred an appeal to the District Inspector of Schools companyplaining of the order terminating his services.
Thereafter, the fifth respondent Krishna Shakhya Kachhi was appointed in his place and, it seems, later companyfirmed.
It appears that he took leave and proceeded home, apparently because his father was seriously ill.
Various auxiliary directions were also given to the District Inspector in regard to the scope of the appeal.
When he returned to his post, he was number permitted to join and was served with an order terminating his services.
The High Court also directed the District Inspector to reconsider the appeal after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Committee of Management of participating in its hearing.
He was companyfirmed in the post on 24th June, 1972.
He also directed that the person appointed in his place be dismissed.
The appellant declares that he had applied for withdrawing the suit and it was disposed of as withdrawn.
There is some dispute whether he actually did so.
