Removed from job for being absent for 5 days!

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A teacher approached the High Court with a petition challenging her removal from service claiming she had been absent for only five days and the punishment was not in proportion.

The High Court however found that she was not even a permanent employee and therefore the rules did not apply to her.

“The contention that (she) was away from service only for 5 days and therefore the removal on that ground is disproportionately on the higher side again is not acceptable. The Educational Appellate Tribunal recorded in its order that the appellant was only a contract employee and was working as a part-time teacher and further that her such appointment having not been confirmed she was discharged from service,” the HC noted in its judgement.

Sujathamma R’s appeal before the HC was heard by the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit who gave their verdict recently. Sujathamma was working in the Sri Vani Education Centre, Rajajinagar.

She claimed to have been appointed as a permanent teacher in the school. She was absent for five days and though she gave a plausible explanation, she was removed from service.

She had approached the Educational Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed her claim. Then her petition was dismissed by a singlejudge bench. She then approached the Division Bench of the HC.

She contended that though she was on probation, her service was continued beyond the maximum period of probation which amounts to declaration of satisfactory completion of the probationary period.

The HC however said that this was a “bit difficult to countenance.” The HC said that she had not been made a permanent teacher by the school and therefore was not entitled for relief.

“The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the appellant was 'chronically absent before the institution and as her teaching was not upto the mark, her employment was not made as permanent',” the HC said.

Dismissing the appeal, the HC said, “The appellant despite service of notice from the management, did not offer her explanation for remaining absent for quite a long period.” (WA 239/2023)