JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition arises out of the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 01/2005, by which the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) has been allowed and her termination order dated 27.9.2004 has been quashed and the petitioner Institution has been directed to reinstate the respondent back in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case in brief, are that respondent no.2 was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher in Maths on 4.4.1996 w.e.f. 2.4.1996 by the petitioner Institution and she was removed from service vide order dated 27.9.2004 and six months salary of Rs. 62,394/- was paid to her in lieu of six months notice.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of her removal, the respondent submitted an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that she was removed from service in violation of the provisions contained under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short “Rules of 1993”). It was pleaded before the Tribunal that without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, she was removed from service with various allegations of beating students of her class. It was pleaded that her removal order was stigmatic and without seeking consent or approval of the Director of Education the impugned order dated 27.9.2004 was passed. It was also pleaded that full salary of six months was not paid to her and the impugned order was passed against the mandatory provisions of law.

4. Per contra, the stand of petitioner in the reply was that the respondent beated a student of class Ist brutally and the news was published in newspaper. The respondent was in the habit of beating students of her class and she was earlier warned for such acts. Thereafter the school management took decision to remove her from service in the interest of students and school. In compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1989, six months salary was paid to her in lieu of notice.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal held that the removal order was stigmatic and no opportunity of hearing was given to her and no enquiry was conducted against her and full salary of six months was not given to her and the removal order was passed in violation of Section 18(iii) of the Act of 1989 and Rules 39(2)(h)(iii) of the Rules of 1993. The Tribunal quashed the impugned removal order dated 27.9.2004 and directed the petitioner Institution to take back the respondent in service with all consequential benefits vide judgment dated 10.8.2011.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing this petition.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after following the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, removal order of the respondent was passed. Counsel submits that the respondent was in the habit of beating students and she was warned on number of occasions, but her behaviour did not change and her such act affected the reputation of the school, hence the school management took the decision to remove her from service after making payment of six months salary in lieu of the notice. Counsel submits that the removal order was not stigmatic, hence no enquiry was required to be conducted after issuing notice to her. Counsel submits that full salary was paid to the respondent as defined under Section 2(r) of the Act of 1989. Counsel submits that consent or prior approval of the Director of Education was not required and the removal order dated 27.9.2004 was communicated to the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, on the next date i.e. 28.9.2004. Hence, the provisions contained under Section 18 of th