ISLAMIC MISSION OF INDIA Vs. M. TASNEEM SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the order dated 24.8.2001, passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, is challenged. The appellant terminated the services of the respondent on ten charges, said to have been framed against the respondent. The respondent challenged the order of termination based on the charge-sheet, before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, contending that the order of termination was passed without service of the charge-sheet on her. The Educational Appellate Tribunal, in that view, set aside the order of termination passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by and not satisfied with the said order the appellant filed civil revision petition before the High Court. The High Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, recorded a finding that there was no material to establish that the charge-sheet was ever served on the respondent. The High Court also found that the finding recorded by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in that regard was right. Since the order of termination of the services of the respondent was passed by the appellant without service of charge-sheet, as already stated above, the High Court did not find any good ground to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. In that view the High Court dismissed the revision petition affirming the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondent was not at all qualified to be the Principal of the College and admittedly she did not possess the requisite qualification to be the Principal of the College. He also made a few more submissions to assail the impugned order. But he was not in a position to dispute that the charge-sheet was never served on the respondent before passing the order of termination based on the charge-sheet. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support of the impugned order.

(3.) As is evident from the impugned order the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the charge-sheet was not served on the respondent. While doing so, liberty was also reserved to the appellant to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law. We are not inclined to consider the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was not qualified to hold the post of Principal. That is a separate issue. It was not the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. It is open to the appellant to take appropriate action in that regard in accordance with law. But as far as the present case is concerned, the order of termination without serving the charge-sheet on the respondent could not be sustained. The Educational Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in setting aside the order of termination. We do not find any good ground to take a different view. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs.