Uttarakhand High Court
Archana Rani vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 March, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
WPSS No.2238-16 Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on regular basis. She joined her duties at Primary School, Dharpangu, Dharchula on 14.10.2016. Petitioner was a single parent. She was taking care of her daughter at Dharchula. However, taking into consideration the remoteness of the area i.e. Dharchula, she tendered her resignation on 22.1.2016.
Thereafter, the petitioner again participated in the selection process to the post of Assistant Teacher. Petitioner was selected and she joined her duties at Primary School, Block Narsan, Roorkee (Haridwar).
Petitioner's services were terminated vide impugned order dated 27.7.2016 (Annexure No.7 to the petition).
The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was neither issued any show cause notice nor she was afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order dated 27.7.2016.
The petitioner, being a permanent government servant, ought to have been afforded opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned termination order dated 27.7.2016.
The purported ground on which the petitioner's services have been terminated, vide the impugned order, is that the petitioner has concealed the fact of her earlier appointment.
Petitioner was legitimately expecting that the resignation, tendered by her on 22.1.2016, would be accepted within a reasonable period. The respondents have taken unduly long period in rejecting the resignation dated 22.1.2016 made by the petitioner. Thus, there is no concealment per se in the present case. There is also violation of principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice, is a nullity.
The resignation made by the petitioner should have been accepted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 16.11.2016, rejecting the petitioner's resignation tendered by her on 22.1.2016, is quashed and set aside. Petitioner now would be deemed to be employed on regular basis w.e.f. 21.7.2016 with all consequential benefits.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 27.03.2017 Rdang