Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(10) Further more, the initial appointment of petitioner was made by order dated 22.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) and subsequently without conducting any enquiry, her services was dispensed with by order dated 20.11.2014 for not producing the qualifying certificates of TET & B.Ed though the advertisement containing the said stipulation as condition precedent was not produced before the Court. It appears that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend her case and without conducting any enquiry, termination simplicitor was done inflicting major punishment of termination of service. Thereby the rule of Audi Alteram Partem is completely given a go-bye and further it casts a stigma to the petitioner for being not qualified. The defence of respondent no.5 cannot be presumed unless relevant documents are placed on record and despite repeated opportunity time and again, same was not placed along with relevant note sheets. Though the CMO has stated that the documents are missing, yet fumble efforts were made and Respondent No.5 tried to camouflage the entire issue by filing a documents under covering memo without any affidavit. That would not come to the aid of respondent No.5 (11) In view of the aforesaid finding, the order dated Annexure P-1(A) dated 20.11.2014 issued by respondent no.5 is quashed/set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated with all back-wages. Further more since contradictory statements have been made before this Court and certain documents were tried to be pushed in official records which prima facie appears has no relevancy , the investigation is required to be conducted to find out the source of documents and the author who supplied. The Concerned CMO may hold an enquiry to ascertain the fact and he would be free to bring the culprit to the books of Police, if need be. (12) Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the above observations/ direction.