BIMLA CHOPRA Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Ambala, upholding the dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit by the trial Court.

(2.) SHRIMATI Bimla Chopra Plaintiff was serving as a permanent teacher under the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union and on 3rd July, l956, was posted at Sabathu when she received a telegram from the Divisional Inspectress of Schools, Patiala Division Defendant No. 5 intimating that she had been suspended from service vide Government order No. 236 dated 25th May, 1956. Subsequently in the month of September, 1956. she was transferred from Sabathu to the Government Girls High School, Nalagarh, where she reported for duty on 17th September, 1956. The Headmistress of the Nalagarh High School allowed her to work for a couple of days only and then relieved her of the charge saying that she was still under suspension.

(3.) THE Plaintiff challenged correctness of the above order by a writ petition in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was dismissed by Gosain J. on 8th March, 1960. Thereafter she instituted the present suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ambala, on 5th May, 1960, for a declaration that the order of her dismissal from service by the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Defendant No 2, was illegal, improper, unjustified, ultra vires and void and that she was still in service of the Punjab State Defendant No. and was entitled to get her pay and allowances according to Rules of the service from the date of her suspension till the disposal of the suit. She alleged that appointment of Mrs. G. Parampal Singh Defendant No 4 as Enquiry Officer was against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience because she was her witness in the enquiry and was also inimically disposed towards her. She further averred that no reasonable opportunity to show cause against her dismissal from service was given to her as provided in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and that the Enquiry Officer committed material irregularities and illegalities as detailed in paragraph 8 of the plaint. Miss S. Sen, Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Defendant No. 3 before the enquiry was instituted against her is said to have sent for and asked her whether she would like to resign from the job or stand the enquiry which in her opinion prejudiced her case. She also contended that the Director did not consider a large number of representations made by her from time to time which vitiated the proceedings held by him while dismissing her from service.