VYAS, J. - (1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13. 6. 2001 (Annexure-7) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated by the District Education Officer (Secondary-I), Department of Education, Udaipur.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed after due selection as Teacher Gr. III (Urdu) vide order dated 30. 3. 1990 by the District Education Officer (Girls), Udaipur. Later on, her services were confirmed vide order dated 16. 6. 1993. The petitioner worked on the said post till 5. 9. 1998. Thereafter, as stated in the writ petition, an application was filed by the petitioner for leave to proceed for Kuwait to stay with her husband for sometime. As per the petitioner, she has prayed for leave of 36 months w. e. f. 5. 9. 1998 and the said application was submitted to the Director, Education, Bikaner through District Education Officer, Udaipur. The District Education Officer, Udaipur called her in his Office on 27. 10. 1998 and it was personally conveyed to her that the leave sought by the petitioner and permission to leave headquarter during the leave period has been granted by the competent authority for three years. Further, it is informed that the order of requisite grant of the leave shall be kept by the Department in service book of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, a certificate was issued in her favour on the same day with regard to best wishes for her and success in life by the Mead Master of the School. In pursuance to the verbal assurance given by the District Education Officer, the petitioner left for Kuwait on 9. 11. 1998 and before proceeding, she filled up the privilege leave form mentioning her address of Kuwait. She had contacted marriage on 23. 3. 1998 in Udaipur and her husband was living in Kuwait and therefore, she proceeded on leave to met her husband at Kuwait. According to the petitioner she gave birth to a premature baby in April, 2000 and son born to the petitioner was very weak, therefore, the petitioner remained in the hospital for about 20 days and thereafter due to certain mental tension, the petitioner suffered severe shock, therefore, she was hospitalized for quite long period. The petitioner returned to India on 17. 2. 2002 and thereafter on 25. 2. 2002, she reported for joining duties at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Savina Kheda, Udaipur but she was not allowed to join duties by the Head Master. Therefore, she filed an application before District Education Officer, Udaipur with the prayer for granting her permission to join duties. The petitioner was informed that her services have already been terminated by the District Education Officer, Udaipur after holding disciplinary proceedings against her. Upon this information, she made a request for supplying the copies of the relevant documents of the inquiry proceedings but all her requests went in vain and only a photo-stat copy of termination order dated 13. 6. 2001 was supplied to the petitioner but original copy was not supplied to the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an application in the School for joining but she was not allowed to join duties. THErefore, the petitioner time and again made requests to the respondents to supply the original copy of the order dated 13. 6. 2001, charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the notices which were sent to her at Kuwait but those documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Although in the termination order, a reference of charge-sheet and certain notices, which is said to be sent to the petitioner at Kuwait. But all these documents were not supplied to the petitioner though major penalty of removal from service was inflicted against her. THErefore, the decision of the respondents for imposing major penalty of termination is against the principles of natural justice and in violation of mandatory provisions as prescribed under the Rules of 1958. After filing an application with the prayer for letting her to join her duties before the respondent Department on 2. 7. 2004. When the prayer of the petitioner was not given any heed by the respondents, then in compelling circumstances, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the validity of the termination order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 13. 6. 2001 is totally against the procedure laid down under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is argued that the so called notice, issued to the petitioner at Kuwait address was not served upon him, therefore, so called enquiry conducted ex parte against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the termination order, submitted that no finding on each charge has been given which is mandatory as per Rule 16 (9) of the CCA Rules 1958. The respondents were required to conduct the enquiry in proper manner after due service of the notice to the petitioner but while observing in the order that the delinquent did not appear in the enquiry, the ex parte order has been passed. Without prejudice to the above arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even in ex parte proceedings, the disciplinary authority was required to record finding against the absentee after recording evidence, therefore, without recording any oral evidence and documentary evidence against the petitioner, the impugned termination order has been issued. Meaning thereby, no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for her absence from duties. The petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to prove her innocence before the enquiry officer because no notice to show cause was ever served upon the petitioner issued by the disciplinary authority. Thus, the action of the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. ;