ORDER Arun Mishra, J.—The question involved in the writ petition is the validity of the order of dismissal of the Petitioner on serious charges without conduct of formal enquiry, issuing charge-sheet. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Teacher by Gram Panchayat Gopla Block, Hanumana District Rewa. She was appointed on the fixed honararium of Rs. 400/- per month. Petitioner claim that she performed her duties with full integrity, honestly and with dedication. She was served with the order Annexure P-1 dated 31-12-1998 intimating that on 31-10-1996 her service was extended for one year and her work and behavior was not considered appropriate as such her appointment was cancelled on 10th September, 1998. Petitioner did not submit reply to show-cause notice dated 10-2-1998 and 2-3-1998. She was informed not to come to the Institution and not to render the duty and was directed to handover the charge and records to other teacher. Petitioner submits that in her place Respondent No. 5. Smt. Buti Devi Patel has been appointed though the order Annexure P-1 was issued but was not implemented till filing of the writ petition which was filed on 26th October, 1999 and she was still rendering her duties as teacher in Shishu Shiksha Kendra Banta Mahatman Block, Hanumana District Rewa. She was sent to Diet Training as reflected in the letter dated 9-4-1999 (Annexure P-5) of the District Project Co-ordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission District Rewa. Relief sought is to quash the order dated 31-12-1998 (Annexure P-1) and restraining the Respondent from discontinuing the Petitioner from discharging her duties as teacher. As per Annexure P-5 action was directed to be taken against the Head Master as to why the Petitioner was not relieved in view of the fresh appointment having been made. 3. The Respondent No. 2 Village Panchayat, Gopla in its return contends that services were terminated on 10-9-1998. The order dated 31-12-1998 is a consequential order. The Petitioner did not perform her duties sincerely. She was found absent from the Centre. Show-cause notice was issued. No reply was sent and Petitioner continued to be negligent thus Shishu Shiksha Samiti decided to terminate the services of the Petitioner which was approved by the Gram Sabha. The matter was looked into by Block Education Officer who also found Petitioner to be absent on several occasions. She was found absent from the Centre. Show-cause notice was issued. No reply was sent and Petitioner continued to be negligent thus Shishu Shiksha Samiti decided to terminate the services of the Petitioner which was approved by the Gram Sabha. The matter was looked into by Block Education Officer who also found Petitioner to be absent on several occasions. However, after her termination she did not handover the charge to Respondent No. 5 Smt. Buti Devi Patel newly appointed teacher. Show-cause notice R-2/2 is placed on record by Respondent No. 2. It was mentioned in the show-cause notice that her continuance was not justified and was against the public and the interest of the Government because she was habitual of committing misconduct. She was termed to be characterless, her work and behavior was also termed to be bad and her continuance was not desirable in the interest of institution. She was required to show-cause as to why her services should not be dispensed with and fresh appointments be not made and someone else may be appointed. The resolution passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 24-8-1998 (Annexure R/2/2) indicates that notices to show-cause dated 10-2-1998 and 2-3-1998 were sent by U.P.C. but no reply was sent, hence the termination was made in Village Panchayat in the meeting dated 18-3-1998 and 19-4-1998. Hence the matter was considered in the meeting dated 18-3-1998 and 19-4-1998 and in the meeting of Gram Sabha on 26-3-1998 and 21-4-1998 and the appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled and she was ousted and in the meeting dated 24-8-1998 again the approval was made of the dismissal of the Petitioner and at the same time Smt. Buti Devi was ordered to be appointed, the order Annexure P-1 says that the Petitioner was removed on 10-9-1998. The resolution Annexure R-2/2 has absolutely no reference to the order dated 10-9-1998. Whatever that may be. In the rejoinder, the Petitioner submits that she was not served with the show-cause notice (Annexure R2/2). Petitioner submits that even so-called termination order dated 10-9-1998 was not issued to her and counsel for the Petitioner further submits that it is very easy to procure Under Postal Certificate now a days. 4. It is apparent that the Petitioner was removed without conduct of an enquiry against her. She was not charge-sheeted, no disciplinary enquiry was conducted into various allegations reflected in show-cause notice dated 2-3-1998. 4. It is apparent that the Petitioner was removed without conduct of an enquiry against her. She was not charge-sheeted, no disciplinary enquiry was conducted into various allegations reflected in show-cause notice dated 2-3-1998. Even the Petitioner was mentioned to be characterless and various allegations were meted out. Issuance and receipt of the show-cause notice is denied by the Petitioner. There was allegation that she remained absent on several occasions; which were those dates when she was found absent and by whom it was definitely necessary to look into these aspects. Without holding an enquiry in proper manner in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the services of the Petitioner could not be get rid-off. 5. Even in the case of termination on the ground of absence, ah enquiry is held to be necessary by the Supreme Court in L.D. Dhamanekar and Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharat Seva Samiti and Anr. AIR 2001 SCW 3786 . The automatic termination of a teacher was held to be bad in law. In Scooters India Limited v. M. Mohammed Yaqub, (2001) 1 SCC 61 their Lordship held that it is absolutely necessary to conduct an enquiry into various causes of absence. In the instant case there was various other misconduct alleged in the show-cause notice which ought to have been enquired into after issuance of charge-sheet and enquiry should have been held consistently in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity to defend herself. The issuance of show-cause notice by U.P.C. is also understandable when the Petitioner was serving in the school. She should have been served personally. No receipt of UPC has been filed. It is easy to procure such certificate of Under Postal Certificate. Supreme Court in the case of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. alias Balasaheb Vikhe Patil and Ors. AIR 1994 SCW 1 held that: 60. Gadakh's version that he sent the letter dated 16th Mar. 1991 (Exh. Q) under certificate of posting is unbelievable. A certificate of posting is easy to procure and does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the circumstances belie his version. With his considerable means and past experience of elections, he would have sent such a letter by registered post to ensure its delivery and create cogent evidence of its dispatch. 1991 (Exh. Q) under certificate of posting is unbelievable. A certificate of posting is easy to procure and does not inspire confidence. Moreover, the circumstances belie his version. With his considerable means and past experience of elections, he would have sent such a letter by registered post to ensure its delivery and create cogent evidence of its dispatch. Moreover, he would not merely send such a letter but have his denial published in newspapers because of its significance during elections. We have no doubt that Gadakh's conduct belies his belated denial at the trial. 6. Similar view was taken in Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema Vs. Shri B.B. Gujaral and Anr, . However, nothing turns much on it. Since enquiry should have been conducted, Petitioner should have been charge-sheeted properly. She should have been informed of the charges clearly only thereafter her service could be dispensed with for the various misconducts and simply that elected body Panchayat decided with majority to get rid of the services of the Petitioner is not sufficient to terminate the services of the Petitioner. That should have preceded proper enquiry for determination of guilt, only then question of putting matter before Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha would arise. The tendency is growing to get rid of an employee simply by rule of majority. Service is not an elected office it is not permissible to remove an employee without conduct of an enquiry held consistently in accordance with principles of natural justice where removal is intended on serious charges. Before consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, supply of copy of it to delinquent to afford opportunity of a representation is necessary and thereafter matter could have been considered whether Petitioner is required to be removed or not. No such procedure was adopted. The order dated 10-9-1998 has also not been placed on record by the Respondent No. 2. 7. Resultantly the order of her dismissal as intimated to her as per Order Annexure P-1 and the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha are set aside. Petitioner is directed to be re-instated. The Petitioner prays that she has served even after order Annexure P-1 was issued. This aspect would be looked into by the Respondents No. 2 and 3. The Petitioner shall be paid 50% of the back wages for the period which she may not have been allowed to render the service. Petitioner is directed to be re-instated. The Petitioner prays that she has served even after order Annexure P-1 was issued. This aspect would be looked into by the Respondents No. 2 and 3. The Petitioner shall be paid 50% of the back wages for the period which she may not have been allowed to render the service. For the period she has rendered service after removal, she shall be paid at the full rate of the permissible amount in terms of order of appointment. Appointment of Respondent No. 5 is not being disturbed by this Court. However, it would be open to the Gram Panchayat to consider whether her services are required to be continued or not. 8. Writ petition is allowed. The order of removal of Petitioner (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Costs on parties. Final Result : Allowed