The employer-employee relationship comes to an end after an employee's superannuation, and no sanction can be accorded to a proposal seeking to remove an employee from service after their superannuation.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The DAV College Trust and Management Society filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment dated 17.05.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 9028 of 2010. The appellant had remained unsuccessful before the Educational Tribunal where appellant has challenged the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Director of Public Instruction whereby the request of appellant for according approval to proposed penalty of removal of Mrs. Madhu Sharma-respondent No. 4 was declined. It is appropriate to mention that some charges were levelled against respondent No. 4 who waking as Principal, D.A.V. Girls Senior Secondary School, Ferozepur Cantt. After holding enquiry against the respondent No. 4, the appellant approached the Director of Public Instruction for grant of approval to remove her from service under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for brevity the Act) read with Rule 18(3) of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 framed thereunder. According to the aforesaid Section, approval of the D.P.I. is mandatory before imposition of penalty of removal from service. The D.P.I. declined the approval on the ground that the appellant No. 1 namely, DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi is not competent to charge-sheet her and the charge-sheet dated 24.10.2005 issued to her by the aforesaid Managing Committee is null and void. The argument which has prevailed with the D.P.I. appears to be that the aforesaid Managing Committee, New Delhi had no jurisdiction, power and authority to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against her. The D.P.I. has further given liberty to the appellant to initiate the proceeding afresh in accordance with the procedure established by law.

2. The order of D.P.I. dated 26.11.2008 was challenged by the appellant before the Educational Tribunal under Section 4(3) of the Act. However, by the time order dated 2.3.2010 could be passed by the Educational Tribunal, respondent No. 4 Mrs. Madhu Sharma had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009.

3. The Educational Tribunal adversely commented on the order of D.P.I. to the extent it had held that DAV Managing Committee, New Delhi-appellant to be incompetent to initiate charge-sheet and enquiry against the respondent No. 4. However, it felt its inability to grant any relief because respondent No. 4 has already attained the age of superannuation. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the order, the following observations have been made :

"17. In spite of the setting aside the impugned orders, we are not in a position to give any relief to the appellant except the one given above. Neither the DPI(s) nor the Tribunal could put seal to the proposed dismissal of Mrs. Madhu Sharma, because admittedly she has superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.10.2009 and she is not on the rolls of the School. In other words, she would be entitled to her wages and she would be deemed in service up to 31.10.2009 and her suspension would also extend up to this date. The Management, however, will be entitled to deduct the subsistence allowance and other allowances paid to her from time to time from her salary and other allowances which were admissible to her up to 31.10.2009.

18. With these observations, the present appeal is partly allowed- the order of the Learned Director is set aside but due to intervening circumstances of superannuation, respondent No. 3 would be entitled to salary and other allowances with consequential benefits up to 31.10.2009 minus the benefits which she has received in any shape earlier."

The order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Educational Tribunal was challenged in writ petition, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2010 holding that the directions issued by the Educational Tribunal were unexceptionable. The learned Single Judge has upheld th