EVA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner--an ex-Head Mistress of the Urdu Girls school, Oriya Bazar, Cuttack--challenges the order of the District Inspectress of schools, Central Circle, Cuttack, dated January 5, 1965 rejecting an appeal by way oil representation filed by the petitioner against, the resolution dated October 24, 1964 of the Managing Committee of the School by which the Managing Committee recommended that the services of the petitioner be terminated.

(2.) ON September 9, 1964 the petitioner was called upon to show cause against certain charges including the charges that the petitioner remained absent from the school, without any application, from August 7, 1964 to August 9, 1964 and then from August 11, 1964 to August 18, 1964 causing dislocation of normal school work and further that she failed to intimate the President of the school about the holding of the public meeting on August 7, 1964 within the school premises. On september 29, 1964 the petitioner submitted an explanation purported to meet the charges against her; she also requested in her explanation for an independent enquiry or causing an enquiry to be made with proper notice to her before the concerned authorities proceeded to take any action against her interests. On October 24, 1964 the Managing Committee passed a resolution giving findings on matters not included in the charges, namely, that she instigated the School mistresses to go on strike and she was also found guilty of subsequent insubordinate behaviour with the President, as recorded in the resolution purported to give findings on the charges. As against the decision of the Managing committee the petitioner appealed to the District Inspectress of Schools under article 336 of the Orissa Education Code. The District Inspectress of Schools rejected the said appeal by way of representation. It is against this decision of the district Inspectress of Schools that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE main ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned order is that no opportunity was given to her for a personal hearing although she prayed for the same in her explanation to the charges. We are satisfied that she should have been given such opportunity to meet the charges as prayed for by her. The procedure adopted by the concerned authorities was not regular and against the principle of natural justice.