M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-Miss Shaukat Mahmood was employed by the Manager of the Government Kashmir primary Girls, School, Shalimar Town Lahore, on 8th April, 1971 as an untrained teacher on a monthly salary of Rs.
100. She applied and was selected for training for the Primary Teaching Course for which the Management of the School granted her leave without pay from 1st October, 1971 till the expiry of the course. On expiry of the course she reported for duty on 1st November, 1972. She was advised by the Headmistress to approach the District Inspectress of Schools, Lahore. The appellant was allowed to resume duty in. The School in pursuance of order No. 1150 dated 5th May, 1973. The appellant resumed duty on 7th May, 1973. This order seas passed on Government orders conveyed to the Director of Education vide letter No. S. O. (NS) 6-15/73 dated.
4th May, 1973 nationalizing the services of the appellant. The appellant served until the impugned order dated 29th September, 1977 received by her on 8 October, 1977 terminating her services. She filed a representation with the Government.
2. The appellant has now submitted this appeal that since her services have been nationalized they could not be dispensed with and the order of 29th September, 1977 is, therefore, bad in law and be set aside.
3. We leave seen the record. The case of the appellant was examined by a Committee constituted which came to the opinion that Miss Shaukat Mahmood resigned from the service of the Management prior to nationalization in order to seek admission to the P. T. C. Training class. It is alleged that later on the appellant, in connivance with the Ex--Manager, tampered with the record so as to show herself on leave w.e.f. The date she actually resigned and then could get her servicesth nationalized. Even if this be the correct position a mere order of termination of service of the appellant being violative of principles of natural Justice, will not be a valid order. Proper procedure had to be, followed. The appellant has to be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence against her in order to come to a decision whether the appellant was on leave or she had actually resigned from service. For this reason the procedure adopted has no legal effect. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and the order of termination is set aside.