ZINC VIDYALAYA PRABANDH SAMITI Vs. HEMA TANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Management against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.25/2016 by which the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent-employee namely Hema Tank and has held that the order of discharge of service of the respondent-employee dated. 02.03.2016 be quashed and she was held entitled to be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-employee was issued a charge-sheet dated 12.02.2016 wherein it was alleged that on 11.02.2016 when the respondent-employee was on proxy period of Class-VIII, it was observed that she gave corporal punishment to the students by using iron scale. It was alleged that due to the said corporal punishment, around 15-16 students got injured and it resulted into cuts, bruises and painful swellings on their palms. It was alleged that students were given First Aid immediately after the incident in the Zinc Hospital. The petitioner-Management alleged the said act of the respondent - employee to be in breach of the undertaking of 2013 wherein she committed not to give corporal punishment to the students and further alleged her act to be in breach of MoU signed on 27.08.2012. The alleged act was also not said to be in confirmation of circular No.20/2014/675578 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 06.02.2014. The petitioner-Management further alleged that act of the respondent- employee was not in confirmation of compliance under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short "Act of 2009") and the same was in violation of Section 17 of the Act of 2009.

(3.) The respondent-employee had filed reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2016 and she pleaded that exemplary services were rendered by her since 1996 in the Institution and she was awarded several prizes on different occasions for her exemplary services. She also pleaded that she had always taken pains to give best guidance to the students with her positive attitude. The respondent-employee also did not specifically admit the charge but she only explained by writing that if her attitude was little strict, the same was adopted like a mother and she adopted tough attitude sometimes against the children, with no intention to cause any harm to them.