RAM DULARI KAITHWAR Vs. INSPECTRESS OF GIRLS SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Oak, elated the 18th February, 1958. The facts so far as they are relevant for the purposes of this appeal are these: In 1951 the appellant was appointed to officiate as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Basic Primary School, and she remained in the employment of the State Government until June, 1956. Throughout this period she was a temporary employee. Her relations with the educational authorities do not appear to have been very happy, and on the 15th July, 1955, the Assistant Director of Education (Women), U. P., Allahabad, directed the Inspectress of Girls Schools, 111 Region, Allahabad, to ask the appellant to show cause why her services should not be terminated for having used improper and undesirable language in relation to her superior officers in a representation which she had made to Government.

(2.) THE appellant submitted an explanation which was forwarded by the Inspectress of Girls Schools to the Assistant Director of Education, and on the 15th June, 1958, she received a notice terminating her services. That notice was in these terms:

(3.) IT is argued that although the Government had the right to terminate the appellant's services without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal, it however elected to follow that procedure and it accordingly follows that the order ultimately made terminating the appellant's services was intended to be, and was, a punishment. T do not think this argument is well founded. 'The real test', it was laid down in Dhingra's case : (1958)ILLJ544SC ,