KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State as well as Shri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

(2.) The short question of law which arises before the Court is whether the services of a permanent teacher can be dispensed with on the ground of being absent from duty for a sufficiently long time under the provisions of Rule 18 of Financial Handbook Part II (Volume 2 to 4) Chapter III without resorting to disciplinary proceedings under the disciplinary rule.

(3.) Admittedly, the services of the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973. As per the said rules in question, Rule 2 deals with appointing authority, declaring appointing authority of posts mentioned in Column 2 of the schedule. Rule 3 authorizes appointing authority to impose penalties provided for, for good and sufficient reason. Penalties provided therein are as follows: