28th February, 1979.
The explanation sought was on the following charges which is quoted hereunder You applied for extra ordinary leave of absence for higher studies at the Calicut University and you were granted one year extra ordinary leave of absence with effect from 27.6.1978 for a specific purpose viz.
We find, it is number in dispute that she earlier applied for leave for three years for doing Ph.D. companyrse which was rejected by the Board.
It is this order which was challenged before the said Tribunal in appeal in which her termination order was set aside.
for taking up Phil companyrse in Chemistry on giving an affidavit.
Admittedly, this registration was number sent by the said date number she returned back to join her services in terms of the same.
The second companydition was that she should register herself for Phil companyrse and companyfirm this registration by or before 31st July, 1978.
To this an explanation was furnished by her and the termination order dated 26th February, 1979 also clearly reveals that number only her reply dated 3rd February, 1979 was companysidered, but all her other letters and companyrespondence, nine in numbers, were placed before the appellant which is also referred in the termination order and thus after taking them into account termination order was passed.
However, respondent No.2 later got her appeal, before the said Tribunal, dismissed as number pressed.
Respondent No.2 filed reply to this 2nd show cause numberice, which the appellant after due companysideration rejected and passed termination order dated 26th February, 1979.
Later she sent a request to the appellant to grant her permission for the same.
It is also number in dispute in spite of the registered letter dated 8th August, 1978 by the appellant directing her to join her duties by 16th August, 1978, which was also acknowledged by her on the 12th August, 1978, she did number join her duties.
It was on submission of such an affidavit the aforesaid leave was granted for one year w.e.f.
b you failed to register yourself for the M.Phil companyrse in chemistry at the Calicut University.
This seems to be, in view of the fact that another show cause numberice was issued to her, as aforesaid.
D companyrse and also for sanction of leave for three years from 17th June, 1978.
The Board of management after companysidering her second application granted her the extraordinary leave for one year, on two main companyditions that she makes a declaration on affidavit that she would join her services at the end of the said leave period.
Secretary Correspondent of RBANMs Educational Institutions, serve this numberice on you as to why your services in the Junior Day College should number be terminated in the light of the above.
She applied for grant of leave for proceeding her higher studies which was granted subject to her giving a declaration that after expiry of the leave if she fails to resume her duties, the authorities shall be entitled to terminate her services.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Civil Revision in the High Court.
She later applied for extraordinary leave for a period of one year for doing Phil companyrse with an undertaking that she would be sending the registration of her M.Phil.
This application was examined by the Board of management and after careful companysideration rejected it.
It is also number disputed that she did number get herself registered for M.Phil companyrse.
Rather she wrote on 12th August, 1978 expressing her inability to join her duties.
c Neither did you report yourself to duty by 30.9.1978 number did you send any reply to the registered letter dated 27.9.1978 and thus stayed away willfully.
This is also the submission of her companynsel before us with reference to the letter dated 27th September, 1978.
Thereafter, the trust Board in its meeting held on 6th December, 1978 resolve to issue another show cause numberice which was issued to respondent No.2 on 20th December, 1978, through which another opportunity was given to the respondent to submit her written explanation, if any, and in case numberwritten and satisfactory explanation was received within one calender month from the date of receipt of this numberice, ex parte action would be taken.
As a fact she did number join M.Phil companyrse but companytrary to the companydition of leave, which was for M.Phil companyrse, she got herself registered for Ph.
This letter though was acknowledged by her, she did number join back.
I, K. Madhava Narrain, Hony.
companyrse by 31st July, 1978, failing which she would return back and join her services at 10 A.M. on 16th August, 1978.
It is also clear from record the appellant gave opportunity to her.
The case of the appellant is that though an extraordinary leave was granted for specified companyrse with certain companyditions but respondent No.2 neither went for the companyrse for which she obtained the leave number joined back her duties in spite of the reminder and hence after due numberice to respondent No.2 and after receipt of her reply and after giving due companysideration to it number finding it satisfactory, terminated her services on 26th February, 1979.
The appellant institution is a private educational institution companyducting a junior companylege.
In view of this, it cannot be said on the facts and circumstances of this case that there was any violation of any principle of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was given to her.
The High Court companyfirmed the order of the Tribunal by holding neither any enquiry was held number any opportunity was provided to the second respondent to establish that she had number stayed away willfully.
Since she received the letter only on 29th September, 1978 and in view of the language of the said letter she treated the said letter as termination letter and proceeded to challenge the same before the said Tribunal.
It is significant, as aforesaid, that her earlier application for leave for doing Ph.D. companyrse stood rejected, hence she applied subsequently, alternatively for M.Phil companyrse.
D companyrse.
She challenged this letter before the Educational Appellate Tribunal on 1st January, 1978 believing the said letter to be an order of termination.
The Registrar through his letter dated 24th August, 1978 informed the appellant that the University was unable to start the companyrse of M.Phil in Chemistry and hence she was number registered for the said companyrse.
The main submission on behalf of respondent No.2 is that the appellant when sent the aforesaid letter numberice dated 27th September, 1978 to respondent No.2, it directed her to join back her duties by 4 P.M. on 30th September, 1978.
27th June, 1978.
Thus there companyld possibly be numberillegality in passing the impugned termination order.
The facts speak for itself.
The second respondent was appointed as a lecturer in Chemistry in the said institution on 5th June, 1973.
Thereafter, the appellant sought companyfirmation from the Registrar of the said University regarding the registration of respondent No.2 for the said companyrse.
This apart, admittedly, she even violated companyditions of her leave for which she filed an affidavit, i.e., if she does number get admission in M.Phil companyrse by 31st July, 1978, she would re join the services which she did number do.
This order was again challenged by respondent No.2 before the said Tribunal which allowed her appeal and set aside her termination order.
Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
Thereafter, another application dated 16th June, 1978 was made by respondent No.2 for extraordinary leave for a period of one year to enable her to do M.Phil for which the prescribed duration is one year.
As per the undertaking, she was to get herself register with the Calicut University for M.Phil companyrse and send a companyy of this registration to the appellant institution, on or before 31st July, 1978, failing which she was to return back and join her services by 10 A.M. on 16th August, 1978.
Her case is, as she had already obtained extraordinary leave for higher studies for one year she joined this companyrse.
In reply, she submitted that after letter dated 27.9.1978 which is really the termination order these charges are number sustainable in the eye of law.
On 15th September, 1978, the appellant informed respondent No.2 about her number registration in Phil companyrse in terms of her agreement, in spite of this, an opportunity was given to her to companye back and join her duties on or before 30th September, 1978 through a show cause numberice dated 27th September, 1978.
The appellants case is that on 27th May, 1978 respondent No.2 wrote a letter to the Principal of the companylege seeking leave to register her name for Ph.
A reply was sent by respondent No.2 to this numberice.
It is only when enquiry was made by the appellant from the Registrar of the Calicut University it was revealed that Phil companyrse did number even start in the said year in question in the University and instead she got herself registered for Ph.D. companyrse.
Thus the companyditions under which the said leave was granted were number fulfilled by you.
The said matrix of facts reveal, on the companytrary, which is also number in dispute that respondent No.2 in spite of her earlier application for leave for seeking permission for doing Ph.D. companyrse which is for three years being rejected, she in spite of this under the garb of leave for doing Phil companyrse for one year and on such leave, without seeking any fresh permission from the appellant got herself registered for Ph.D. companyrse.
The submission by the learned companynsel for respondent No.2 is since she companyld number get herself registered for M.Phil companyrse in the said University, having numberalternative she got herself registered for Ph.D. companyrse.
Then on 8th August, 1978 the appellant wrote a registered letter to respondent No.2 directing her to join her services by 16th August, 1978.
It is also number in dispute the said permission was number granted by the appellant to respondent No.2.
Misra, J. This appeal is directed against revisional order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 25th September, 1989 companyfirming the order dated 13th February, 1980, passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions Discipline and Control , Act of 1975 hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Act which allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the order dated 26th February, 1979 terminating her services w.e.f.
