RUBBY BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General points out that as per Annexure P-10, the petitioner has statutory remedy before the Government. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out that Annexure P-10, being a non speaking order, the petitioner cannot effectively prosecute an appeal. What is stated in Annexure P-10 is only that the explanation of the petitioner is not found satisfactory and the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. According to the petitioner, even assuming the charge has been proved, the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. Reference is invited to the decision in G. Reddappa vs. The Director, National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) Hyderabad and another Services Law Reporter 1990(1) (A.P.) page 340., wherein, in identical circumstances, the punishment has been reduced by the Court to barring of three increments. It is also pointed out that the vacancy is still available in Government Senior Secondary School, Jongon, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan and the order may be set aside with a direction to re-consider the whole case and the petitioner be permitted to join the service. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General, though we find force in some of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that it is only appropriate that the petitioner pursues the statutory remedy available to her before the first respondent at the first instance. It will certainly be open to the first respondent, in view of some of the valid contentions, raised by the petitioner to see whether the petitioner can be permitted to work during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) IN view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Authenticated copy.