USHABEN PURUSOTTAMDAS POPAT Vs. PRESIDENT/HONORARY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The captioned Letters Patent Appeal No.482 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.8492 of 2003 emanates from the judgement and order dtd. 30/9/2014 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Udhwani), wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to the District Education Officer (DEO) after 16 years by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No.280 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No.19162 of 2015 emanates from the judgement and order dtd. 10/1/2017, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) has again remanded the matter to the DEO.

(2.) The appellant as of now is more than 78 years of age. She was appointed as a teacher in the year 1977. She was subsequently appointed as a Principal in the school run by the respondent No.1 on 7/1/1986. Thereafter, she was suspended by the order dtd. 27/11/1998 in the contemplation of the departmental inquiry and thereafter, a show-cause notice dtd. 12/12/1998 was issued to her. It appears that Application No.29 of 1999 was filed by before the Gujarat Education Tribunal ("the Tribunal") assailing the departmental inquiry. It was the case of the appellant that some relevant documents were not supplied to her and the same were supplied after the order passed by the Tribunal and ultimately, a charge-sheet dtd. 10/2/1999 has been issued to her.

(3.) After holding a regular departmental inquiry, the appellant was dismissed. The same was approved by the DEO vide order dtd. 12/10/1999 by invoking the power under the provisions of Sec. 36(1)(b) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1972. The same was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal by the appellant vide Application No.382 of 1999. The Tribunal, by the judgement and order dtd. 25/2/2003 dismissed the said application along with Application No.250 of 1999. Thus, both the applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by recording that "Except for the period of absence of applicant at the head quarter, for rest of the period till the date of her dismissal the management shall pay 50% salary difference to the applicant within a period of one month."