CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 06 ,2011 Hindu Senior Secondary School, Kaithal and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Hindu Senior Secondary School, Kaithal and its Managing Committee has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders dated CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: 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. 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. 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: 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. Notice of motion was issued and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a common reply whereas respondent No.3 has filed separate reply. Reference is made to the fact that service conditions of the employees of the Government aided private schools are governed by the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 (for short, “the Rules”). As per Rule 51 (4) of the Rules, the School was required to obtain prior approval of the Department for terminating the services of respondent No.3. It is alleged that without obtaining said approval, the services of respondent No.3 were terminated on 20.4.2009. Against this, respondent No.3 had filed an appeal and the order was set-aside. The appeal filed by the School against this order was also dismissed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: It is stated that act of the School-management was totally arbitrary and illegal and the management was in hurry to dispense with the services of respondent No.3 and it was so done without awaiting the approval. In a separate reply filed by respondent No.3, reference is made to Rule 110(d)(iii) of the Rules which is as under:- “On receipt of the representation, if any, made by the employee, determine what penalty, if any, shall be imposed on him before communicates its final decision to him it shall be referred to the appropriate authority for approval. The appropriate authority shall convey the approval/disapproval to the Managing committee within 30 days. If no decision is taken within such period, it shall be treated as approved. The Managing Committee thereafter communicate its final decision to the employee with a copy to the appropriate authority.” Thus, it is stated that no employee of the Government aided school can be dismissed from service without prior approval of the competent authority. Dismissal order in this case was passed on 20.4.2009. The same was referred for approval of the Director on 21.4.2009. This was conveyed to respondent No.3 on 11.5.2009 without waiting for approval of the competent authority. It is pointed out that even in the reply filed on behalf of the management in response to prayer for interim application in a suit filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner had stated that respondent No.3 stood dismissed. This reply was filed on 6.5.2009. On this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: basis, it is urged that respondent No.3 was dismissed without awaiting the approval from the competent authority and so, the D.E.O as well as the Director were fully justified in passing the impugned order. The whole issue on the basis of pleadings, thus, was to decide if the dismissal order has been passed without obtaining approval of the competent authority or not? The petitioner in this regard would rely upon the contents of Rule 110(d)(iii) of the Rules to contend that the appropriate authority had not conveyed approval or disapproval within 30 days. Therefore, it was taken to be a case of deeming approval, which is as per the Rules. The Managing Committee thereafter had conveyed the decision on 25.5.2009. Against this, respondent No.3 had made reference to a communication dated 11.5.2009 to urge that dismissal order has been communicated without waiting for the approval and this was done in hurry and in violation of law. When this case came up for hearing before this Court, the State counsel was required to have instructions if the Director to whom the case was referred for approval had passed any order within one month from the date of forwarding of the same or not. Additional affidavit was then filed and the State counsel prayed for time to bring the record. Despite repeated opportunities, no one came from the office of Director to bring the record and the case had to be adjourned on more than one occasions. Director General of School Education, Haryana, was then directed to remain present in Court alongwith record on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: adjourned date. He accordingly has come present today and submits that directions were issued to the D.E.O to produce the record before this Court but somehow those directions were not complied with. He further submits that explanation of the officer concerned has been called and action is likely to follow. The officer has further stated that such an action may entail disciplinary proceedings against the officer, who has not complied with the directions, leading to unnecessary adjournments in this case on more than one occasion. The final action taken against the official would be submitted before the Court for information. The Director is told to take an appropriate action against the official concerned and on completion thereof, submit the report before the Advocate General of the State for information of this Court. The record has been perused. The letter initiated by the petitioner dated 21.4.2009 was received by the Director on 5.5.2009. While the matter was under consideration, the petitioner had already been communicated the order of termination. Accordingly, the question of deemed approval in this case would not arise. In fact, respondent No.3 has placed before the Court a communication dated 20.4.2009, through which she was informed that her services from the school have been terminated by the management on 20.4.2009. This communication is addressed to respondent No.3, with copy to Director General/Commissioner and D.E.O. A separate communication was addressed to Director General/Commissioner on 21.4.2009. Respondent No.3 was also sent a cheque dated 1.5.2009, which she received. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: In this background, what needed to be resolved was whether the petitioner School had addressed a communication dated 20.4.2009 to respondent No.3 or not? Counsel for the petitioner emphatically denied that any communication dated 20.4.2009 was addressed to respondent No.3. Copy of communication received by respondent No.3 was placed before this Court for perusal. This communication is clearly addressed to respondent No.3, signed by Manager, whose signatures tally with the communication addressed to the Director. It is a typed letter, without any scope of interpolation. Even the office of District Education Officer, Kaithal, had initiated a communication on 18.5.2009 to the Manager of the School, by observing that final decision has already been communicated to respondent No.3 through letter dated 20.4.2009, which was not provided under the Rules. The Manager of the School was accordingly asked to clarify this aspect. The copy of this communication is annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R3/3. There is no clarification forthcoming in this regard. The receipt of this communication is further evidenced from the fact that a cheque of `6098/- had also been forwarded to respondent No.3, which she received. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner-School has acted in haste in terminating the services of respondent No.3 without following the procedure prescribed under the rules. Though not needed but I have done limited exercise to satisfy myself and find that the petitioner has not followed the provisions of law while directing termination of the services of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13258 OF 2010 :{ 8 }: respondent No.3. The Director as well as District Education Officer are fully justified in interfering in the impugned order, which was passed in violation of law. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 06,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE