Adarsh Kumar Goel, A.C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of dismissal of the Appellant, as upheld by the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab and the School Tribunal, Punjab under the provisions of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service), Act, 1969 (for short, "the Act") and the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service), Rules, 1974.
(2.) THE Appellant was appointed as a JBT teacher in Khalsa National Higher Secondary School, Ludhiana in the year 1972. The school is an aided school, to which the above Act and Rules are applicable. The Appellant was charge -sheeted for alleged misconduct of making false complaint of sexual harassment against the Principal. Her complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana had also been dismissed and the said order was upheld by the revisional Court. Her complaint was found to be ill -founded by Harbax Singh, Establishment Officer who conducted inquiry into the matter and also by Piara Singh, the then D.H.O., Ludhiana. Similar was the finding given by Shri M.L. Gotra, the then G.A. to Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. After the charges against her were proved, a copy of the inquiry report was sent to her alongwith the show cause notice and after consideration of reply of the Appellant, order dated 30.12.1980 was passed, dismissing the Appellant from service w.e.f. 31.12.1980.
(3.) THOUGH in first round, the order of dismissal was not approved by the Director and the Commissioner, this Court vide judgment dated 23.2.1988 in Managing Committee of the Khalsa National Higher Secondary School, Shahpur Road, Ludhiana v. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Ors., 1988 (2) SLR 402 set aside the orders of the said authorities and remanded the matter for fresh decision. Thereafter, the order of dismissal was approved by the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab under Section 3(2) of the Act and by the Commissioner, acting as the appellate authority.The Director, Public Instructions (Schools) held as under: ...But I do not find any substance on the arguments of the learned Counsel of the Respondent that the Respondent had not been provided adequate opportunity to defend her case. Except enforcing its decision of dismissal hastily without getting it confirmed from the Deputy Commissioner, the Managing Committee observed the entire proceedings as laid down under the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1974 framed under the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1969 by serving proper charge -sheet, holding enquiry and service show cause notice. It is a different matter that the Respondent did not attend the proceedings of inquiry and the inquiry officer had to hold ex -parte inquiry.... ...In this case as I have observed above, the Respondent was provided adequate opportunity of defence by the Managing Committee before passing the order of dismissal. Thus, I am left with No. power to refuse the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Committee which is the competent authority to dismiss its employees from service by observing the Provisions of the security of service Act and Rules framed there under. Obviously the order passed by the then Director to refuse the confirmation of order of dismissal was violative of the said provisions of the rules particularly when he had observed in his order dated May 14, 1982, that the procedure adopted by the Managing Committee for dismissing the teacher was valid procedure....;