9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to the order of termination u/s 24 of the Primary Education Act and Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997, reinstatement under section 47(1) of the Act, jurisdiction of the Commissioner of disabled persons.
Challenge to Order of Termination: The respondent, a primary teacher, was terminated from service due to frequent absences. Despite multiple notices and opportunities to respond, the respondent did not provide any explanation or defense. The termination was carried out in accordance with the proper procedure under section 24 of the Primary Education Act and Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997. Reinstatement under Section 47(1) of the Act: The respondent filed a case before the Commissioner of disabled persons, claiming to be suffering from a mental disease and seeking reinstatement under section 47(1) of the Act. The Commissioner allowed the application, directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent, provide posting within seven days, pay salary, and treat her service as continuous. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner: The petitioner challenged the Commissioner's order, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside the termination order. The petitioner contended that there was a significant delay in filing the application after the termination. The respondent's advocate argued that the order was justified under section 47 of the Disability Act, stating that the respondent's dismissal was improper due to her mental condition. Analysis and Decision: After reviewing the record, it was found that the respondent had a history of prolonged absences without responding to notices or providing necessary documentation. The respondent's claim of mental illness was not substantiated with a medical certificate. The petitioner had followed due process in terminating the respondent's service, and the Commissioner erred in setting aside the termination order. Conclusion: The High Court quashed and set aside the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the respondent's absenteeism predated the Act, and her challenge to the termination was time-barred. The decision to dismiss the respondent was deemed justified, considering the impact of her prolonged absence on the school and students.
|
