SAKUNTALA DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner joined as an Asst. Teacher on 1/6/1989 in Madan Mohan Jew Sanskrit Vidyalaya, which is an Aided Educational Institution. She served as such continuously till 12/7/2003. On 14/7/2003 the Head Pandit of the Institution did not allow her to sign in the Attendance Register and to take classes for which, the Petitioner submitted representation on 17/7/2003 to the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Puri, Odisha (Opposite Party No.3) with copy to the District Education Officer, Jajpur (Opposite Party No.4) While the matter stood thus, the Head Pandit by letter dtd. 23/8/2003 asked the Petitioner to give reasons for her absence. This was followed by a spate of correspondence between them with the Petitioner claiming that she was not allowed to sign on the Attendance Register while the Head Pandit taking the stand that she had remained unauthorizedly absent. After several correspondences, which yielded no result, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 21/6/2006 to the Principal Secretary to Government in School and Mass Education Department for redressal of her grievance. Pursuant to such representation, the Director of Secondary Education directed the Petitioner and the Head Pandit to be present on 5/7/2006, but while the Petitioner appeared, the Head Pandit did not. An attempt was made to ensure joining of the Petitioner by the Director of Secondary Education by deputing the Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer of the office of District Education Office in his presence. The Petitioner submitted her joining report on 20/7/2006, but the same was not accepted by the Head Pandit. Ultimately, the Petitioner was allowed to join in the School on 25/7/2007. She thereafter made several representations for regularization of her aforementioned period and payment of salary for the same i.e. from 14/7/2003 to 25/7/2007, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Director vide order dtd. 27/12/2013 constituted a five member sub-committee for inquiry. The Sub-committee enquired into the matter, but was not convinced that the Petitioner had rendered her duty during the relevant period and recommended that the said period be decided as leave due admissible to regularize her period of absence. The Director however, did not accept the inquiry report and directed a re-inquiry to be conducted. However, in his letter dtd.21/1/2016 the Director wrote to the Petitioner stating that she was unable to produce the required documents in support of her continuance in the School for the relevant period and therefore, no further inquiry was required to be taken up at that stage.

(3.) Despite sufficient notice, no counter affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party-authorities.