' Appellant is ex-Bulavi/Naib Qasid/BS-1 in Education Department, who was appointed as such through order dated 12.10-1993. However, she was removed from service by the same authority through order dated 20-8-2001. She filed departmental appeal which was rejected through order dated 28-10-2002--hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant was a female employee and her appointment was made by the competent authority and same authority subsequently turned against the appellant as the said authority had certain personal differences with the brother of the appellant and had also managed to initiate proceeding against the brother of the appellant, who was a senior clerk in the Education Department. It is further stated that the appellant was revengefully removed from service on the allegations that her documents were bogus, but no mention is made of particular documents which were bogus, particularly when there is no qualification prescribed for the post of Bulavi and when the fact is proved from record that the appellant had done even F.A. By now. It is next maintained that no inquiry was held to give opportunity to the appellant to defend herself and orders were passed arbitrarily out of vengeance and personal vendetta by the authority. It is next maintained that similarly appellate orders were also passed without application of an independent mind.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents through their written objections. It is stated that the authority was competent to remove the appellant from service under RSO. It is next maintained that proper procedure was adopted while passing the impugned orders and that the orders of appointment of the appellant were found dubious and for this reason the appellant was removed from service.
4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I have seen a copy of the inquiry report against the brother of the appellant, who was senior clerk. According to the findings of said inquiry report, it is established that the headmistress, who removed the appellant from service, was in litigation with the brother of the appellant and had personal reasons to proceed against the said accused. I further find that the fact is admitted, even in the written objections filed by the respondents that the appellant was matriculate while no qualification is prescribed for the post of Bulavi (BS-I). The respondent have not able to place any document on record including any inquiry report to show that the appointment of the appellant was found dubious. Unless proper inquiry was held, the appointment of the appellant as Bulavi could not have been condemned unheard. Her documents were considered bogus without verification of those documents. Moreover, no detail of those documents is given anywhere.
5. For the reasons given above, appeal is accepted and the appellant is reinstated. Period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due. The authority is however, at liberty to proceed against the appellant afresh through regular inquiry by an independent officer, but only on concrete and specific allegations.