JASBIR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legality and validity of the order dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-17/T) passed by respondent No. 2 is in question in the present writ petition. Vide the aforesaid impugned order, petitioner has been terminated from service from the date of her suspension, on the basis of Resolution No. 433 dated 25.4.2006. It may be useful to notice the factual background of the case.

(2.) Petitioner came to be appointed as a teacher by respondent No. 2, on ad hoc/temporary basis on 9.9.1968. Subsequently, vide Resolution No. 41 dated 5.2.1979, she was confirmed in the service w.e.f. 9.9.1978 vide order dated 26.2.1979/1.3.1979 (Annexure P1/T). While serving as a Social Studies Mistress in Guru Nanak Girls Senior Secondary School, Amritsar, she was appointed as Principal in the said School w.e.f. 11.7.1991 vide order dated 26.7.1991 issued by respondent No. 2. While she was performing her duties as a Principal, she was served with a communication dated 29.6.2001 (Annexure P- 3/T) asking her to lodge an FIR against the concerned Bank on account of certain illegal withdrawal from the Student's Funds of the School w.e.f. 12.2.1999. It is also mentioned in this letter that on the basis of enquiry report, an amount of Rs. 2,46,759/- has been illegally withdrawn. She was also informed that failure to lodge FIR will attract action against her. It is alleged that petitioner complied with the aforesaid communication and lodged an FIR with the police which came to be registered as FIR No. 118 dated 2.8.2001 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC with the Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar. Petitioner was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure P-4/T) that FIR has been lodged. Vide subsequent communication dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure P-5/T) of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner asking her to submit reply to the charges within 15 days. It may be relevant to mention that in this communication, she was also informed that she has already been placed under suspension vide order No. 1313 dated 23.8.2001. From the copy of charge-sheet accompanied with the aforesaid communication, it appears that number of allegations were made against the petitioner. Vide Order No. 1638 dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure P-6/T), petitioner was ordered to be retired from service on attaining age of 58 years w.e.f. 30.9.2001 after being reinstated provisionally and pending the enquiry into the charges against her. Since the retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld, she approached this Court through the medium of CWP No. 17438 of 2004 seeking a direction for payment of the retiral benefits. However, the said petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2004 whereby respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the legal notice of the petitioner. The order dated 8.11.2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17438 of 2004 is noticed as under :-

(3.) The claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 vide communication No. 26474 dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure P-11/T). It was also communicated that speaking order dated 18.2.2005 was earlier passed which, though, sent to her, has been returned back by the Postal Department. Copy of the order dated 18.5.2005 was also annexed with this communication. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing CWP No. 5928 of 2005 again claiming retiral benefits. This writ petition again came to be disposed of by order dated 11.4.2005 which is noticed as under :-