WPSS/36389/1997 of SMT MANJU SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2008-03-25
Case number: 6078 of 2001

Parties

R/o National Seeds Corpora;tion, Post R.T.C., Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar (PETITIONER)
Union of India through Secreatary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1 resolved of 2 detected)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA (1991)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

Court No. 2

IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6078/2001 (Old No. 36389 of 1997).

Smt. Manju Sharma,

Wife of Sri R.K. Sharma,

R/o National Seeds Corpora;tion, Post R.T.C., Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar.

……… Petitioners

Versus

1.Union of India through Secreatary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

2.Army Welfare Education Society (A.W.E.S.) A.G.’s Branch, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi through its Chairman. (A.W.E.S.) A.G.’s Branch, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi through its Chairman.

3.Committee of Management, Remount Depot School, Hempur, Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur District- Udham Singh Nagar through its Manager. School, Hempur, Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur District- Udham Singh Nagar through its Manager.

4.C-Hairman, Remount Depot School,Hempur, Kashipur, Ditrict-Udham Singh Nagar. Kashipur, Ditrict-Udham Singh Nagar.

5.Manager, Remount Depot Primary School, Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. Post R.T.C. Hempur, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar.

6. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar. Udham Singh Nagar.

……….. Respondents

Date: March 25, 2008.

Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J.

Heard Sri Pulak Agarwal and Sri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 18.07.1994 on ad-hoc basis on temporary post of Assistant Teacher and her services were extended for further periods. Her

services were terminated by impugned order dated 01.10.1997, contained in annexure No.15 to the writ petition. The ground of challenge is that she was not given any notice and opportunity of hearing though the charge of misconduct and indiscipline was the basis of termination order. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases, page 691 the Apex Court has held that the appointing authority may take lenient view and may drop the disciplinary proceedings and pass the order of termination. Here the termination order is simpliciter. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) the impugned order of termination cannot be said illegal. 3. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

P.Singh

(P.C. Verma, J.) 25.03.2008