P.K.S. Baghel, J.The petitioner is a teacher in a Madarsa. She is aggrieved by the order of her termination dated 26.12.1998 and the resolution passed by the committee of management to the said termination. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts are given hereunder:

2. Madarsa Arabiya Shahjahan (Niswan) Akbarpur, Allahabad is a Madarsa where Arabic and Persian is imparted. It receives aid out of State Fund. The State Government has framed separate Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Ashaskeeya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali, 1987 (in short Rules, 1987). The said Rules provides the procedure for recognition, terms and conditions of the teachers etc. The Madarsa is established by a society and administered by the respondent No. 5/Committee of Management. It is stated that petitioner was appointed against the vacancy Tehtania in pursuance of an advertisement which was made by the respondent No. 5 herein. She was found suitable and appointment letter dated 14th August, 1995 was issued to her in pursuance thereof she joined her post and started functioning.

3. It is averred that when her as salary was not paid she made representation and her various representations failed to elicit any response from the authorities concerned. Thereafter she approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 29459 of 1998. The said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh writ petition as there were certain defects in the writ petition. A copy of the order dated 10.11.2000 of this Court dismissing the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition is placed on record as Annexure-1. It is stated that on account of the said action the committee of management was annoyed and without resorting to any disciplinary proceedings her services have been terminated. It is alleged in the writ petition that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against her neither she was afforded any opportunity of hearing without taking approval from the Inspector Arabic Madarsa her services have been terminated.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of committee of management. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner remained absent without proper application and a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against her. Full opportunity was afforded to her but she failed to avail. Several notices were also sent to her. The details of those notices have been mentioned in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit and thereafter when she did not turn up a public notice was published in the newspaper Swatantra Bharat. A copy of the said public notice published in the said newspaper is Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit.

5. I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Dwivedi learned counsel for the committee of management and learned Standing counsel.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no disciplinary proceedings was conducted against the petitioner and ex parte inquiry was conducted without knowledge of the petitioner. He further submits that the institution receives aid from State Fund and as such 1987 Rules are applicable to the institution before terminating the services of the petitioner neither nay papers were sent to the Inspector Arabic Madarsa nor any approval has been obtained thus the termination order is illegal and arbitrary as well as it was initiated for the mala fide reasons.

7. Learned counsel for the committee of management submits that the petitioner has not specifically stated that no approval was granted by the Inspector.

8. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in the impugned order it is mentioned that petitioner was given opportunity but she did not turned up.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

10. Indisputably the institution is governed by the 1987 Rules. I find it helpful to quote the Rule 34 of the Rules, 1987 which reads as under:

11. A plain reading of the Rule indicates that before terminating the service of a teacher all the papers should be sent to the Inspector. If Inspector finds that disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted properly or if he finds any irregularity he may send his suggestions to the committee of Management.

12. In the counter-affidavit filed by the committee of management no date has been mentioned when the committee of management sent the papers of termination to the office of the Inspector neither there is any averment in the counter-affidavit that Inspector had received the papers and as such there is nothing on the record to indicate that the procedure laid down under the Rule has been followed. The State authorities were granted time to file counter-affidavit they preferred not to file counter-affidavit.

13. The petitioners appointment has not been denied by the committee of management. There is nothing on the record that disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly. It is trite law that even if employee does not participate in the enquiry the employer/management must prove the charges. Reference may be made to the judgment: Ministry of Finance and Another Vs. S.B. Ramesh, ; Subhas Chandra Sharma v. Managing Director and another, 2000(1) UPLBEC 541 and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, .

14. Even if the Institution is minority Institution the fairness demand that disciplinary proceedings should be conducted fairly.

15. Accordingly I am of the view that there is infraction of Rule 34 of the Rules, 1987 and principle of Natural Justice.

16. The matter is remitted back to the Inspector Arabic Madarsa to pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner as well as the committee of management. The said exercise shall be completed by the Inspector Arabic Madarsa within two months from the date of communication of this order.

17. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.