ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging judgment dt. 19.10.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal. The petitioner has also challenged her order of suspension dt. 25.03.2009 in the instant petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 25.03.2009 issued by the Secretary Adarsh Girls Upper Primary School, Diggi Bazar Ajmer. The suspension order was passed alleging that the petitioner was not obeying orders of superiors and she was indiscipline and not sincere towards her job.

3. The suspension order dt. 25.03.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by filing application No. 466/2014 before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal by the order dt. 19.10.2016 has dismissed the application of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dt. 19.06.2012 and the said order was not under challenge before the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that order of suspension which was passed by the Management, did not require any interference. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that suspension order was passed on 25.03.2009 and the same was challenged before the Tribunal by filing application on 16.09.2014 and as such the delay caused in filing the application, was also not found to be condonable.

5. Mr. Subhash Bisawa, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the order as it has not considered various documents which were placed on record before the Tribunal. Learned counsel has submitted that the Management itself had treated the petitioner in service after passing of the termination order and they had given intimation in the news paper vide 28.12.2012 (Annex.-63). Learned counsel has submitted that the management by the said intimation had informed the petitioner that School shall remain closed for winter break from 25.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 and the School will reopened on 01.01.2013. Learned counsel has submitted that once the order of termination, passed by the Management, was set aside by the District Education Officer (DEO) vide his order dt. 20.07.2012, the petitioner was to be treated under suspension and as such the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of suspension of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel has submitted that the Management had not conducted any enquiry against the petitioner except serving the charge-sheet to her. Learned counsel has submitted that the procedure which is prescribed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution, Rules 1993 has been violated and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend herself in the so-called enquiry conducted against her.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that the Management was given several notices by the grievance committee headed by the Collector to appear before them and submits their grievance against the order passed by the D.E.O. and the respondent-Management never bothered to appear before the Authority and did not implement the order passed by the D.E.O. setting aside the termination order dt. 19.06.2012. Learned counsel has submitted that the initial suspension order dt. 25.03.2009 was passed on the wrong premise and no department enquiry ever initiated against the petitioner nor the same was contemplated and as such the suspension order was illegal.

8. Mr. Shobhit Vyas, counsel for the respondent has submitted that while deciding the application, the Tribunal has taken into account the subsequent developments and in particular termination of services of the petitioner vide order dt. 19.06.2012.

9. Learned counsel has submitted that in the reply which was submitted to the application before the Tribunal, they had specifically contended that the petitioner-applicant had chal