Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School admittedly remained absent for almost three years i.e. from 25.11.2006 and onwards. It is also not in dispute that several notices were issued to her and was also published in newspaper to which she did not submit reply. In these circumstances, the impugned of termination was passed on 23.01.2010 by District Basic Education Officer Auraiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order of termination on account of unauthorized absence amounts to dismissal and without any show cause notice or opportunity, the same could not have been passed and has placed reliance of judgment of this Court in Amirullah Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Others, : 2007(1) AWC 994 and Vijendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., : 2006 (1) AWC 698.
(3.) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find force in the submission. The petitioner admittedly remained unauthorizedly absent for almost three years. No valid reason for absence for such a long period has been shown except the fact that she was pregnant and therefore proceeded for maternity leave. It is evident from record that in 2006 there was a provision for grant of maternity leave for 135 days which was extended to 180 days by Government Order dated 08.12.2008. The said Government Order dated 08.12.2008 is not applicable to the petitioner since she absented herself on 25.11.2006 and even if it is said that she proceeded for maternity reasons at the best only 135 days could have been permitted as maternity leave and not beyond that. Here is the case where petitioner remained absent for almost three years. Besides it is not the case that without any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed but admittedly several notices were issued to the petitioner, the same were also published in the newspaper, as is also mentioned in the impugned order of termination which has not been said to be a wrong statement made in the impugned order as no such pleading has been made in the entire writ petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.;