KAVITA SRIVASTAVA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT O.A. is preferred under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant Mr. R.C. Saxena categorically pointed out that the applicant who was initially appointed as PGT, English in 1993 was transferred and posted as PGT, English in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sitapur and thereafter in 2000 the applicant was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Patna. The applicant was given a show cause notice on 30.12.2003 under Article 81(d)(3) of the Education Code. In the said notice the applicant was also asked to submit written representation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the memorandum failing which an order shall be passed confirming loss of lien of the post held by her. The applicant soon after receipt of the said notice intimated the authorities that the said notice was received by her on 10.1.2004. As such, she sought four weeks more time for submitting the representation/reply in response to the aforesaid show cause notice. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that without granting him the time or submitting representation an order dated 21.1.2004 was passed whereby the applicant was removed from her services w.e.f. 23.9.2002, the date from which the applicant was absent. Learned Counsel has emphasized that Article 81(d)(3) is not applicable in case of the applicant and on the basis of the said provisions the applicant cannot be removed from services. For ready reference Article 81(d)(3) of the Education Code is reproduced below: -

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant filed their rejoinder and in the rejoinder the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and it was once again pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that Article 81(d) is not applicable in the case of the applicant whereas, without following the due process as provided in Article 80 of Education Code the services of the applicant got removed. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, : 2012 (2) SLJ 19 (SC) : 2012 (30) LCD 519 and the case of U.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., : 1993 SCC (L & S) 723. In these two cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that the principles of natural justice is required to be followed in just, fair and reasonable manner which is an essential action required. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that Article 80 of the Educational Code will apply in the case of the applicant and as per the said article all employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya shall be subjected to the disciplinary control of the Sangathan and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will apply to all the employees of the staff. In absence of any enquiry and also in the absence of an opportunity given to the applicant, the impugned removal order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.