DIVYABEN S MODI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for learned advocate Mr.Paresh Upadhyay on behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.4, though served, no appearance is filed on his behalf and therefore, the matter is taken up for final hearing in absence of the respondent No.4.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are narrated as under : The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Mata Na Madh Primary School at Lakhpat Taluka, Kachchh. On 5th February, 1998, when the petitioner went to resume her duties at the Primary School, after her leave, the principal said that she has to report to the Taluka Development Officer for resumption of duties. On the same day the petitioner reported before the Taluka Development Officer. The Taluka Development Officer also did not permit the petitioner and sent written communication to the District Primary Education Officer seeking guidance whether the petitioner should be permitted to resume her duties or not. Thereafter, the petitioner was not given any posting. On 23rd March, 1998, the petitioner was asked why the petitioner is not joining her duties, which, the petitioner immediately replied on 15th April, 1998. But thereafter also nothing happened. On 14th July, 1998 the authorities passed the termination order. That said order of termination was communicated to the petitioner by the Taluka Development Officer, in turn by the Principal on 28th July, 1998. According to the petitioner, before passing the termination order, no chargesheet is issued to the petitioner and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and no detailed procedure has been followed by the respondent. It is also case of the petitioner that number of representations were made from time to time to the authorities but the same remained unanswered and as such, no response was given by the respondent authorities.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent No.2, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr.N.V.Plas, District Primary Education Officer, Kachchh District Panchayat. In the said affidavit-in-reply, the averments made by the respondent No.2 in para-4 & 5 to the effect that the petitioner was recruited as Assistant School Teacher by the respondent No.2 and she joined her service on 15th December, 1994 and was posted at village Mata-no-Gadh, Taluka Lakhpat. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioner was irregular and irresponsible and was remaining absent with immediate effect and after joining the service on 15th December, 1994 she remained unauthorisedly absent for the period from 17th December, 1994 to 23rd December, 1994 and even thereafter she repeatedly remained absent for a long period under numerous causes which was causing inconvenience to the administration and students of the village. However, no action was taken and thereafter the petitioner was also granted Maternity leave for the period from 5th October, 1995 to 29th December, 1995. Thereafter, again the petitioner joined the service, but again remained on unauthorised leave for a long period and remained absent for 551 days between 21st June, 1996 to 5th February, 1998 and worked only for 27 days during this period. According to the respondent No.2, though the petitioner was remaining unauthorisedly absent a lenient view was taken and she was allowed to resume her duty inspite of her gross indiscipline and negligence in performance of her duty. Thereafter, on 13th June, 1997 she assured the respondent No.3 in writing that she would perform her duty diligently and a copy of the said assurance and / or undertaking of the petitioner dated 13th June, 1997 and a copy of the said undertaking is also produced by the respondent along with the reply. But according to the respondent No.2, inspite of all these facts, there was no change in her conduct and therefore, on report from the Taluka Development Officer and the Principal of the School, there was no option but to pass a Resolution dated 19th March, 1997 to the effect that as and when the petitioner reports for the duty, she may not allowed to do so by the Principal of the school as well as the Taluka Development Officer and she may be sent to the District Primary Education Officer for attending the duty. Lastly, the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for long period and on 5th February, 1998 she went to the school for joining the service, but she was asked by the Principal of the School to contact the Taluka Development Officer and accordingly, she approached the Taluka Development Officer on 5th February, 1998 and as per the instructions issued by the District Panchayat Primary Education Committee and the respondent No.2 - the Taluka Development Officer addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 informing him about the irregularities in the service by the petitioner and requested to take appropriate actions for allowing her to join the duty. That said letter was given to the petitioner on 5th February, 1998 at 5.00 p.m. and she had signed accordingly and she was required to approach the respondent No.2 along with the said letter for joining the duty. But the petitioner did not approach the respondent No.2 along with the said letter and therefore, the respondent No.2 having no option but to issue show cause notice on 23rd March, 1998 seeking her clarification which was replied on 15th April, 1998 in a vague manner. However, considering all the facts of the case in its entirety, according to the respondent No.2, they had no option but to terminate her services in the interest of administration and public at large. Therefore, according to the respondent No.2, service of the petitioner was terminated because of careless and negligent approach in the service causing inconvenience and hardships for the administration and the public at large.