P L MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 10, 1,992, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the Saraswati Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Palwal. On December 15, 1995, she was suspended. On December 16, 1995, a charge-sheet was served. On April 11, 1996, the petitioner requested for the payment of subsistence allowance. She pointed out that without the release of payment, she would not be able to produce her defence. The payment was not made. On April 14, 1996, the petitioner's defence was struck off. A week later, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report. The petitioner was given a show cause notice as to why she be not dismissed. She showed cause. However, the explanation was not accepted. The management proposed that the petitioner be dismissed. The Director approved the proposal on August 23, 1996. The petitioner was conveyed the decision regarding her dismissal from service on September 14, 1996. She filed a revision petition before the Secretary, Education on September 27, 1996. It was rejected vide order dated December 24, 1997. Hence this petition.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that in August 1995, respondent No. 4, the President of the Managing Committee had asked her to appoint Smt. Kanchan Mangal as a Peon in the Library. The petitioner could not appoint her as "she had produced a forged matriculation certificate. " Respondent No. 4 was annoyed. Thus, the impugned action had followed. The petitioner maintains that the action is malafide. It is also alleged that the Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 5) is a "close relative" of respondent No. 4. The petitioner further alleges that there was denial of a reasonable opportunity. Thus, the impugned action is vitiated.

(3.) The writ petition was filed on July 18, 1998. A bench of this Court had directed the issue of notice of motion on July 20, 1998. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 had been duly served for August 24, 1998. Despite service, they did not put in appearance. They were proceeded against ex parte. Vide order dated August 24, 1998, directions for the issue of fresh notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were given. They were served on September 10, 1998. Despite that, no written statement has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. The averments in the writ petition have not been controverted by any of the respondents. Thus, the hearing had to proceed on the basis of the averments as made in the writ petition.