M UMA SHENOY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a teacher in the Canara High School, Urva, Mangalore, challenges the order of the second respondent, dated 26th October, 1962 and also the order of the third respondent, dated 15th November 1962, in the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a teacher by the third respondent on certain terms which are embodied in the agreement, Ext. A, dated 5th December 1952, entered into between them. While she (petitioner) was thus working as a teacher, an incident took place on 5th December 1961. According to the third respondent, the Headmaster asked her to go to VIII Standard B for substitution work for the first period but she did not go there and also refused to sign what is called the 'book of substitution work'. The Headmaster, therefore, asked her to explain her conduct within 24 hours why the matter should not be reported to the Manager for disciplinary action. The petitioner, it appears, did not comply with the requirement of the Headmaster whereupon he reported the incident to the Manager who, in turn, issued a notice to the petitioner on the 11th of December 1961 informing her that he had received a report from the Headmaster complaining against her conduct and bringing to her notice that her action was not an isolated one but was a calculated one amounting to gross insubordination. She was also told that an inquiry would be held into her conduct and she was directed to give her explanation by the 14th December 1961 to the charges as per Ext. C appended to it. She was further informed that she had been kept under suspension.

(3.) The petitioner submitted her explanation on 12th December 1961 challenging the correctness of the report made by the Headmaster. The manager held an enquiry and submitted a lengthy report to the Managing Committee or the School authority on 31st December 1961, in which he has not only considered the incident reported but also taken into consideration many other events which were not the subject matter of the charges and has come to the conclusion that during the entire course of her tenure in the school, the petitioner has been a nuisance and a very difficult person to be handled. He considered that her continued presence in the school as a teacher was very harmful and he, therefore, recommended her dismissal.