AIR FORCE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. PUSHPA SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.1, Pushpa Shah, who was working as librarian with the appellant school, was issued a charge sheet, alleging various acts of misconduct insubordination etc. After holding a Departmental Inquiry into the charges, penalty of dismissal of service was imposed upon her.

(2.) The meeting of the DAC was held on 17 th December, 2008 and pursuant to the decision taken in the said meeting, a proposal for imposing major penalty of dismissal of respondent from service was sent to Director of Education, on 19 th December, 2008, for its approval. Vide letter dated 24.12.2010, the Director of Education conveyed to the appellant that the penalty of dismissal of respondent No.1 from service was not warranted, considering the omissions and commissions on her part and that the ends of justice would be met if major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon her. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication from Director of Education, the appellant, vide order dated 14.03.2011, imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement upon respondent No.1. The order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The appeal filed by her was allowed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved vide order dated 31.08.2012, the appellant filed WP(C) 5943/2012 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition having been dismissed, the appellants are before us by this appeal.

(3.) The first contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 before us was that there was denial of principles of natural justice to respondent no.1 since she was not paid subsistence allowance as a result of which she could not defend herself during the inquiry. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr., 1999 3 SCC 679. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant had contended that during the period of suspension he was not paid subsistence allowance as a result of which he could not undertake a journey from his home town in Kerala to place in Karnataka where departmental proceedings were being held. Not only was the appellant denied any subsistence allowance, his prayer for adjournment on account of his illness, which was duly supported by medical certificates was refused, resulting in ex parte proceedings against him. The Apex Court held that the appellant had been punished in violation of principles of natural justice.