KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts taken from the petition are as under :the petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress in the Mandi Harding Ganj High School, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as "the School"), a privately managed government aided school. In the months of June, 1985, the petitioner intercepted certain objectionable letters written by one Vipan Kumar son of Mr. Bal Krishan (stated to be one of the most influential members of the School Managing Committee) to a girl student of the school. This misconduct was brought to the notice of the petitioner by the girl student herself vide Annexure P-1 to the petition and a report was also lodged by the father of the girl with the police. The petitioner being the Headmistress of the school and thus being fully responsible for the maintenance of discipline and for the security of the girl students brought the complaint to the notice of the Managing Committee. It is the petitioner's case that instead of taking action against Vipan Kumar, the Managing Committee under the influence of Bai Krishan, directed its wrath against the petitioner. Various documents have been put on record to indicate that the petitioner continued to suffer harassment on account of the steps that she had taken and at some stage, she also apprehended danger to her life. Faced with this attitude of respondent No. 5, the managing Committee, the petitioner proceeded on leave on 7th August, 1985 on the basis of her application Annexure P-25 in which she referred obliquely to the shabby treatment meted out to her; and before doing so, handed over the entire school record to the clerk against receipt Annexure P-26 dated 8. 8. 1985. The Managing Committee also held an emergent meeting and decided vide its resolution dated 11. 8. 1985, Annexure P-28 to the petition that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed on two years leave without pay so that the controversy which had cropped up could, in the meanwhile, settle down. The Committee also resolved that the petitioner had conducted herself with dignity and responsibility while working as Headmistress of the School and two certificates of appreciation Annexures P-29 and P-30 dated 17. 8. 1985 were also given to her. It is the petitioner's case that she had not applied for long leave but had been forced to go by the Managing Committee. She, accordingly, filed repeated representations including Annexures P-32 to P-34 to the Managing Committee calling upon them to permit her to join her duties. It is further the petitioner's case that though the Managing Committee had itself vide Annexure P-28 ordered two years leave to the petitioner but the said leave was cancelled vide letter dated 15th October, 1985 Annexure P-36 to the petition and she was also placed under suspension with retrospective effect from 17. 8. 1985 and a chargesheet dated 9. 11. 1985 Annexure P-37 was also served on her; one of the main allegations being that she had been absent without leave. The petitioner applied to the Managing Committee for the supply of the evidence that was to be used against her but received no reply. She, nevertheless, submitted her explanation on 5. 2. 1986 vide Annexure P-39 to the petition. While the matter was yet pending before the managing Committee, the petitioner filed a representation to the D. P. I. (Schools), Punjab, under Rule 17 (4) of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') praying that she be reinstated and also be given subsistence allowance as per rules for the period of her suspension. Vide Annexure P-41 dated 1. 7. 1986 the D. P. I. (Schools) directed the Managing Committee to pay the subsistence allowance and to allow her to join her duty as her suspension beyond six months was bad in the light of Rule 13 of the Rules. The Managing Committee, however, did not comply with the order of the D. P. I. , and, informed her that infact no order of suspension had been passed against the petitioner. On receipt of this letter, the D. P. I, vide Annexure P-42 dated 19. 8. 1986, wrote to the Managing Committee that the fact that the petitioner stood suspended was evident from letter. No. 542/a/s. P. L. dated 15. 10. 1985 written by the Managing Committee to the D. P. I, and as such, the petitioner be paid the subsistence allowance and also be permitted to join duty immediately. The Managing Committee, however, instead of complying with the order of the D. P. I, dismissed the petitioner vide order dated 18. 7. 1986 vide Annexure P-43 to the petition. This order was, however, revoked by the Managing Committee itself vide Annexure P-44 dated 30. 7. 1986 but a fresh order Annexure P-46, dismissing her from service was passed on the basis of a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 17. 9. 1986. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation before the D. P. I. (Schools) impugning this order inter-alia on the ground that as the prior approval of the D. P. I, had not been taken as envisaged Under Section 4 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rule 18 (3) of the Rules, the said order was bad in law. The D. P. I. , however, did not take any action on her representation for quite some time allegedly on account of the influence that had been put on him by the Managing Committee. The matter was finally heard in 1987 and it is the petitioner's case that the D. P. I. directed her to go and join her duties on the assurance that she would soon receive a copy of the order. The petitioner was, nevertheless, not allowed to join duty and instead of receiving an order in her favour from the D. P. I, (as stated by her), she received a copy of a letter dated 29. 9. 1987 written by the D. P. I, directing the Managing Committee to appear before him on 28. 10. 1987. The petitioner appeared before the D. F. I, on that date as well and arguments were re-heard and on 23. 10. 1987, the petitioner received a copy of the letter dated 23. 10. 1987 Annexure P-51 to the petition from Sh. S. S. Kishan Puri, D. P. I, addressed to the Managing Committee which directed as under :

(2.) MR . P. S. Patwalia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has first and foremost argued that the petitioner's service could not have been terminated without the prior approval of the D. P. I. as prescribed by Section 4 of the Act and Rule 18 (3) of the Rules and as the approval had admittedly not been taken, the order Annexure P-46, dated 19. 9. 86 was wholly unjustified in law. He has also urged that the action of the Managing Committee was vitiated by the mala-fides that its members bore towards the petitioner and once it was found that Annexure P-29, a Certificate of Appreciation that had been issued by Mohan Lal the President of the Managing Committee (and though denied by him) found by the High Court to have, in fact, been issued, it was evident that no misconduct could be alleged against the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.