MITHLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by the writ petition has challenged the order of termination from service dated 30th December, 1982 Exbt. 8 and has prayed that the order may be quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated with all back wages. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Shri Nehru Bal Mandir, Rajgarh and thereafter she was confirmed on this post vide order dated 29th December, 1971. While working on the post of Assistant Teacher she was served with a charge sheet on 21st November, 1982. The petitioner filed her reply and a regular enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted and she was served with a show cause notice that why she may not be dismissed from service and thereafter by the order dated December 30, 1982 she was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid termination order and an ad interim stay order was also granted by the Deputy District Education Officer (Female) Churu vide order dated 1st January, 1983. In pursuant of this order she was not taken back in service inspite of stay order. However the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner's order of termination was set aside by the District Education Officer (Female) Bikaner vide Annexure -l9. The petitioner again reported on duty but she was not permitted. Thereafter she approached the Director Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner stating that the respondents are not complying with the order and the Director also passed order on 6th October, 1983 that the authorities should comply with the order.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the order Annexure -19 dated 21st January, 1983 the management filed an appeal before the Deputy Director which was accepted by the Deputy Director and the order dated 21st January, 1983 was set aside vide order dated 6th October, 1983 and it was directed that the District Education Officer shall hear the parties and thereafter decide the matter afresh. On remand of this case the District Education Officer heard both the parties, and decided the appeal of the petitioner and held that the petitioner's order of termination is bad and the same was quashed by the order dated 31st January, 1984 vide Exbt. 22. Aggrieved against this the management preferred second appeal before the Deputy Director and the Deputy Director by a cryptic order dated 29th March, 1984 allowed the appeal of the management and the management's order of dismissal of the petitioner was maintained.

(3.) A detailed reply has been filed by the management denying the grounds raised by. the petitioner and it has been submitted that Exbt. 23 has already been set aside by the Director Primary and Secondary Education vide Exbt. R/8 dated 5th June, 1984 being cryptic and non -speaking order.