LATIKA SHRIVASTAV Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner assails the order of her dismissal from service. She was appointed as primary teacher in D.A.V. Public School as per order dated 6 -6 -1991 (Annx. P/1). She was transferred from D.A.V. Public School Bina to D.A.V. Public School Sidhi on 19 -4 -1993 as per Annx. P/2. As per office order dated 20 -3 -1996, she was again transferred from D.A.V. Public School, Sidhi to DAV Public School, Bina. She challenged the order of her transfer from Sidhi to Bina by filing a Civil Suit No. 124 -A/90 before the Civil Judge Class II, Baidhan, District Sidhi. Civil Judge Class II by order dated 10 -5 -1996 granted the injunction in her favour. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Sidhi by the Management. The Appellate Court by order dated 5 -7 -1996 reversed the order. Matter travelled to this Court in C.R. No. 1320/96 and by order dated 4 -9 -1996, the trial Court was directed to decide the application for temporary injunction afresh after hearing the non applicant No. 1 and 2. Matter of injunction again travelled to this Court in C.R. No. 1554/97. The revision was dismissed and decision of the civil suit was expedited. The civil suit came to be decided on 4 -10 -2000 by Civil Judge Class -II, Baidhan District Sidhi. The civil suit was dismissed. A month thereafter, the service of the Petitioner was terminated by the Regional Director -Respondent No. 2 owing to her long absence by order dated 16 -11 -2000 (Annx. P/9). The Petitioner alleges that the order of removal is illegal and is bad in law as no enquiry was conducted prior to passing the impugned order. She further alleged that order of dismissal is based on vengeance and was an outcome of the fact that Respondents were unhappy because of filing of civil suit against them challenging the order of transfer.

(2.) THE case of the Respondents in the return is that no enquiry was required to be conducted. Show cause notice was given on 12 -7 -1998, which was not attended too and Respondent No. 2 is authorised to take disciplinary action as per the authority dated 11 -5 -1992.

(3.) THE impugned order speaks that Petitioner was removed owing to her long absence. The rules framed by the Management Committee, Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Trust and Management Society -Respondent No. 1, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act provides in part -VII 'Appointments and General Conditions of Service'. R.3 of Part -VII provides if the Committee dispenses with the services of a permanent employee, it shall give him three months' notice or pay him three months' salary in lieu of such notice. R.8 provides right to transfer its employees from one institute to another, when it considers necessary. R.3 of part -IX provides 'absence without leave or overstaying leave, including vacation, unless satisfactorily explained, entails forfeiture of pay for such period as may be determined by the Managing Committee'. There is no rule providing for automatic termination of an employee. Thus an enquiry was clearly necessary to be conducted. On similar question in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and Anr., AIR 2001 SCW 3786, the Apex Court held as under: