- (1.) Hindu Senior Secondary School, Kaithal and its Managing Committee has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 30.7.2009 and 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-26 and P-27) passed by official respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. Vide order, Annexure P-26, an appeal filed by respondent No.3, namely, Smt. Rani Devi Gupta, a Teacher working in the School, against her termination has been allowed on the ground that the management should have sought prior approval before terminating her services as per the rules. The order of termination of respondent No.3 was accordingly set-aside and she was directed to be reinstated with immediate effect, pending enquiry. Managing Committee had filed an appeal against this order before Director, Secondary Education, who had upheld the order passed by the District Education Officer, Kaithal, dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure P-26). Accordingly, both these orders have been impugned through the present writ petition.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.3 was appointed as Lecturer in Chemistry on 25.9.1987. Respondent No.3 is alleged to have made some cuttings/interpolations in the School attendance register. Further allegation against her is that she had awarded more marks in the annual examination in the subject of Chemistry of Class XIth. She was asked to re-check the answer sheets. Then she filed frivolous complaint against the management to the Government on 26.3.2008.
(3.) The petitioner-management charge sheeted respondent No.3. She filed reply to the charge sheet, whereupon Enquiry Officer was detailed, who submitted his enquiry report on 28.1.2009. Respondent No.3 was thereafter served a show cause notice, to which she filed reply. Apprehending disciplinary action, respondent No.3 filed a suit against the management. The management thereafter decided on 20.4.2009 to impose penalty of dismissal to respondent No.3. On 21.4.2009, the management passed the dismissal order subject to its approval as per the rules. On the same day, the management sought the approval from respondent Nos.1 and 2 The management claims that it did not receive any response from D.E.O. Within 30 days and in the absence of approval within the stipulated period, the petitioner management dismissed respondent No.3 on 25.5.2009, taking it to be a case of deemed approval. As per the rules, if no communication is received, denying the approval within 30 days, then the approval is deemed to have been granted. Respondent No.3 had appealed against this order to D.E.O, who allowed the appeal and the same order was upheld by the Director.;