JYOTI SHARMA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was appointed as a regular primary teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan in September, 1983. When she was posted in Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2 of Chandi Mandir, she proceeded on six days' Earned Leave w.e.f. 25.6.1996. She could not rejoin her duties and applied for the grant of three months' more leave. It is alleged that she further applied for extraordinary leave from 21.9.96 to 19.12.96. She is alleged to have sent a number of applications for extension of leave.

(2.) The respondent department treated the applicant as absent in an unauthorised manner w.e.f. 25.6.1996. By invoking the provisions of Article 81(d) of the Education Code, a notice to show cause was issued to the applicant under Clause (3) for provisional loss of lien on the post held by the applicant. The applicant submitted representation/reply to the notice. The Competent Authority, i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthah, Chandigarh, taking into consideration the representation made by the applicant and coming to the conclusion that she could not satisfactorily justify her unauthorised absence w.e.f. 25.6.1996, ordered on 18.12.2000, Annexure A-1, that the applicant shall he deemed to have been removed from service of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan w.e.f. 25.6.1996. Aggrieved the applicant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) by order dated 16.7.2001, Annexure, A-2. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1983 claiming the relief that the Order of removal from service and the order dismissing her appeal, Annexures A-1 and A-2 be quashed and she be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The validity and legality of the provisions of Article 81(d) of the Education Code have further been challenged as being ultra vires of provisions of Articles 311, 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, a declaration to this effect has also been prayed.

(3.) HEARD Mr. G.S. Bal learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. H.C. Arora, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents. On facts, there is not much dispute. It is an indubitable fact that the applicant has not attended the Vidyalaya during the period 25.6.1996 to 18.12.2000 on which date, she was removed from service. The applicant herself has admitted that she could not report for duty in the Vidyalaya due to her pressing family problems. Annexure A-3 is the application dated 16.9.96 whereby the applicant on account of family problems, applied for Earned Leave for the period 21.9.96 to 19.12.96. The leave prayed for was not sanctioned. In her another application/letter dated 27.2.2000, Annexure A-4, she has mentioned that her husband, Lt. Colonel D.M. Sharma was posted in Kargil area in operation "Vijay" upto December, 1999 and subsequently, he was admitted in hospital from 3.12.1999 to 7.12.1999; that after remaining on sick leave for some time, he was again hospitalised on 19.3.2000 and has been advised bed rest needing constant care. On the said ground, she prayed for extension of leave upto 30.6.2000. Again on 24-5.2000, Annexure A-7 she made a request for her transfer to Binnaguri, West Bengal as she was keen to join her husband in his peace station tenure and also carry on with her job. By letter dated 28.6.2000, Annexure A-9, she clearly informed the Respondents that she was not in a position to re-join her duty at Chandi Mahdir. She requested to extend her leave upto 30.9.2000. The leave applied for, was never sanctioned. The request of the applicant for transfer also did not find favour with the respondents. Consequently, after serving a notice as required in Clause (3) of Article 81(d) and taking into consideration the reply filed by the applicant, she was removed from service Mr. G.S. Bal, learned Counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal flaw or infirmity in adopting the procedure to remove the applicant from service in the light of the provisions made in Article 81(d).