Allahabad High Court
Kumari Geeta Devi vs State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Basic ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 506 of 2018
Appellant :- Kumari Geeta Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Onkar Nath Tiwari,Maya Ram Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Pawan Kumar Panday,Sharad Pathak
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Shri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant, Shri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 4 and Shri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent No.1 as well as perused the material brought on record.
2. The instant intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3220 (S/S) of 1999: Kumari Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. & others.
3. The appellant/petitioner had filed the aforesaid writ petition pleading that she was appointed as Assistant Mistress in Amar Gandhi Pustakalaya Balika Junior High School, Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "School") on 01.07.1997. On 11.03.1999, she fell ill and was advised complete bed rest for the period of six weeks. Thereafter, she sent an application for medical leave by registered post on the same day. Again on 24.04.1999, she was advised complete bed rest for a further period of six weeks and she sent a leave application accordingly. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner/appellant did not receive the application sent through post. On 20.05.1999, the petitioner went to resume her duties but the Principal of the Institution declined to let her join the duties and she was informed that her service has been terminated in furtherance of resolution dated 02.04.1994 and by means of an order dated 17.04.1999.
4. The petitioner challenged the termination of her service by filing Writ Petition No.3220 (S/S) of 1999.
5. The Committee of Management of the School filed a counter affidavit, annexing therewith a copy of the appointment letter dated 29.05.1997, which states that the petitioner/appellant had been appointed on probation. On 05.02.1988, the petitioner/appellant had given a letter to the Manager/Principal of the School admitting to have committed certain objectionable acts and she requested that she be allowed to serve and the period of her probation be extended. Accordingly, the period of probation was extended for a period of one year by means of a letter dated 13.05.1998. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner/appellant had worked in the School till 30.11.1998 and she remained absent since 01.12.1998 without any information. Numerous letters were sent to the petitioner/appellant at the address mentioned by her stating that she was not attending his duties and her services might be terminated. The notices were sent to the petitioner's address, which was of the house of her father and the same address has been mentioned by the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition and in the special appeal, the petitioner's father gave an affidavit to the Manager/Principal of the School stating that the petitioner/appellant had eloped with a vagabond boy and, therefore, she was not attending the School. Accordingly, on 02.04.1999, the Committee of Management of the School passed a resolution stating that on 22.03.1999 information was published in the newspaper 'Tarun Mitra' asking the petitioner to be present and gave an explanation. As the petitioner did not present and gave no explanation, a resolution was passed to terminated her service. The resolution was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 15.04.1999 and on 17.04.1999, the Manager of the School passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner/appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that it is evident from the affidavit submitted by her father that the petitioner/appellant had married against the wishes of her father and, therefore, she was residing separate from his father and that was the reason that the notices issued by the School were not served upon her. He has submitted that the order of termination was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant and the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Replying to the aforesaid submission, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner/appellant got married on 29.07.1996 whereas she was appointed on 29.05.1997 and in his service related papers, she had mentioned, the address of the house of her father only. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/appellant that petitioner/appellant was residing with her husband and the notices were wrongly been sent to the house of her father, is wrong. He has further submitted that the petitioner/appellant was serving on probation and, therefore, there was no need to hold an enquiry before terminating her service.
8. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, undisputedly, the petitioner/appellant had all along mentioned her address as of D/o Sri Ram Dhani, R/o Village and Post Ashopur, District Ambedkar Nagar and the same address has been mentioned in the writ petition as well as in the special appeal filed by her. The notices were sent to the aforesaid address and after issuance of notice, her father had filed an affidavit stating that she had eloped with a boy. This indicates that the petitioner/appellant did not attend to her duties and being dissatisfied with her performance, her service was terminated while she was still on probation. No detailed enquiry is required to be conducted for terminating the services of a person, who is serving on probation.
9. We are in agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge that while granting approval, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has directed the Institution to fill up the vacancy for a fresh appointment and eighteen years had passed since then till dismissal of the writ petition. This was one of the reasons taken into consideration by Hon'ble Single Judge.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge.
11. The special appeal lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 8.2.2023
Shubhankar
