- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 2.8.1999 of the Hon'ble Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 16646 of 1993, the respondent-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") has preferred this intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) WE have heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.B. Singhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner') and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The brief relevant facts, as emerged from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Ram Pyari Arya Kanya College, Chandausi, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'College'), in the year 1976. For acts/omission constituting misconduct, the management of the College imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments on 3.8.1981 upon the petitioner with the approval of Regional Inspectress of Schools and the said order attained finality since it was not challenged by the petitioner. She made a complaint to the Principal on 5.10.1991 that four students have obtained fictitious pass certificates of Class XI examination from the College though they were not students of the College. She alleged that the said forgery was committed with connivance of teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. Out of the four students one Km. Chhabi, was daughter of Smt. Savita Rastogi, a teacher working in the College. It is further alleged that Smt. Savita annoyed with that complaint, quarrelled with the petitioner on 10.10.1991 in the College premises. The incident was so ugly that in full public view and in presence of teaching and non-teaching staff of the College, clothes of Smt. Savita Rastogi were torn. A FIR was lodged by the petitioner against Smt. Savita Rastogi on 10.10.1991. The Management (appellant) by resolution dated 14.10.1991 suspended both the teachers and appointed one Sri D.C. Agarwal as Inquiry officer. A charge sheet was issued on 8.11.1991. It was replied by the petitioner by letter dated 28.11.1991. The Inquiry officer issued notice on 6.12.1991 fixing 10.12.1991 for oral enquiry, but the petitioner did not participate and instead vide letter dated 28.11.1991 she requested for supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses. The Inquiry officer concluded inquiry and submitted report dated 16.12.1991 (Annexure-l to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit) holding charges proved. The Committee of Management issued notice dated 21.12.1991 directing petitioner to appear before it on 24.12.1991 but she did not avail the said opportunity. Again, the Management issued notice dated 1.1.1992 fixing 4.1.1992. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 8.1.1992 and therefore she had no occasion to appear before the Management. The Management thereafter passed resolution on 25.1.1992 for imposing punishment of dismissal and sent copy thereof to U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred as 'the Commission') for its approval as required under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short "1982 Act"). The petitioner was issued notice by the Commission pursuant thereto she submitted reply and also appeared before the Commission on 4.1.1993 and gave her statement. The Commission granted approval vide order dated 21/24.4.1993. Assailing Commission's order dated 21/ 24.4.1993, the aforesaid writ petition was filed. The petitioner mainly challenged the impugned order on the ground that the enquiry report was unreasoned, non-speaking, she was not supplied copies of relevant documents which were relied upon by the Management in the enquiry proceeding in support of the charges levelled against her, adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to her, the entire enquiry proceeding was in collusion between Smt. Savita Rastogi and the Manager of the institution and has been conducted in hot haste, the Commission did not give adequate opportunity inasmuch as the petitioner was required to appear on 4.1.1993 and the Management-respondents were heard on 30.1.1993, therefore, she had no opportunity to rebut the submissions advanced by the Management before the Commission, the order of the Commission is in violation of principles of natural justice and is also vitiated for the various other irregularity pointed out by the petitioner.
(3.) THE Management (appellant) which was arrayed as respondent No. 5 filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that the work and conduct of the petitioner throughout was highly unsatisfactory but with the hope that with the passage of time she may improve, the Management took a lenient view by administering only warnings for her acts and omission, and, even her increment was stopped, but ultimately the Management was compelled to pass resolution dismissing her from service. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein denial of opportunity of hearing is reiterated. In reply to the averments made" in paras 28 and 29 of the Counter affidavit, it is said that the petitioner has wrongly been dismissed from service.;