JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as also Section 151 of CPC, 1908 inter alia seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) the said impugned order of termination dated 19/3/01 be quashed and set aside and the Respondent be directed to reinstate the Petitioner as though there has been no break in her services;

(b) give full continuity of service as well as the salary for the years during which she has been unemployed.

(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all that the petitioner seeks is quashing of the impugned order of termination dated 19.03.2001 and does not want any reinstatement. In fact, she submits that the petitioner prays for a cost to be imposed by the respondent for harassing the petitioner and making her run from pillar to post.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.08.1995, the petitioner was inducted as a Librarian in the Indian Council of Child Welfare (ICCW) and was appointed by the Standing Committee. The petitioner asserts that the testimonials, in original, in respect of her qualifications were also submitted for consideration of the Standing Committee. After almost a year, on 16.08.1996, the services of the petitioner were confirmed as Librarian. It is asserted that on 14.07.1996, the petitioner received appreciation from the Chairman of the respondent.

4. The petitioner submits that being a Librarian, she was made to work in other aspects as well and wherever there were Seminars etc., she was given the task of a Representative of ICCW, i.e. the respondent.

5. She submits that on 19.08.1999, the petitioner had to urgently leave the office, inasmuch as she was in the late stages of her pregnancy and had to get herself admitted in the hospital. It is also stated that the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on the next day. The petitioner, thereafter joined the services after three months of statutory maternity leave and continued as such.

6. She also claims that on 04.10.2000, she received a certificate for participation in the International Conference on Asia Pacific held at Delhi.

7. While the petitioner was in service of the respondent, vide the reminder letter dated 28.12.1999 referring to the Office Memo dated 15.12.1999 the respondent had directed the petitioner to submit her academic testimonials for verification, which according to the memo, was not submitted by her till date. The said reminder was followed by other reminders on 21.01.2000, 31.01.2000 and 07.02.2000.

8. Subsequently, by the Office Memorandum dated 19.03.2001, the respondent had, while leveling various charges against the petitioner terminated the services of the petitioner by one month’s notice, in accordance with the terms of the engagement of the services of the petitioner and the minutes of the Standing Committee’s meeting held on 19.12.2000. The petitioner had submitted her detailed representation against OM on 28.03.2001. The respondent-ICCW vide the letter dated 09.04.2001 had rejected the said representation and reiterated the termination by one month’s notice given to the petitioner vide the OM dated 19.03.2001.

9. This Court has heard the arguments of Ms. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Ms. Saroj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, perused the documents on record and considered the judgments relied upon by the parties.

10. It is undisputed that the petitioner was inducted into service vide the letter dated 01.08.1995. The controversy regarding the allegation of non-submission of the original testimonials for verification has been raised by the respondent, which is clear from the various reminder letters given to the petitioner vide the letters dated 28.12.1999, 21.01.2000, 31.