FARIDA LUKMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13. 6. 2001 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated by the District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Department of Education, Udaipur.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed after due selection as Teacher Gr. III (Urdu) vide order dated 30. 3. 1990 by the District Education Officer (Girls), Udaipur. Later on, her services were confirmed vide order dated 16. 6. 1993. The petitioner worked on the said post till 5. 9. 1998. Thereafter, as stated in the writ petition, an application was filed by the petitioner for leave to proceed for Kuwait to stay with her husband for sometime. As per the petitioner, she has prayed for leave of 36 months w. e. f. 5. 9. 1998 and the said application was submitted to the Director, Education, Bikaner through District Education Officer, Udaipur. The District Education Officer, Udaipur called her in his Office on 27. 10. 1998 and it was personally conveyed to her that the leave sought by the petitioner and permission to leave headquarter during the leave period has been granted by the competent authority for three years. Further, it is informed that the order of requisite grant of the leave shall be kept by the Department in service book of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, a certificate was issued in her favour on the same day with regard to best wishes for her and success in life by the Mead Master of the School.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an application in the School for joining but she was not allowed to join duties. THErefore, the petitioner time and again made requests to the respondents to supply the original copy of the order dated 13. 6. 2001, charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the notices which were sent to her at Kuwait but those documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Although in the termination order, a reference of charge-sheet and certain notices, which is said to be sent to the petitioner at Kuwait. But all these documents were not supplied to the petitioner though major penalty of removal from service was inflicted against her. THErefore, the decision of the respondents for imposing major penalty of termination is against the principles of natural justice and in violation of mandatory provisions as prescribed under the Rules of 1958. After filing an application with the prayer for letting her to join her duties before the respondent Department on 2. 7. 2004. When the prayer of the petitioner was not given any heed by the respondents, then in compelling circumstances, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the validity of the termination order.