JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) by means of which the original application preferred by the opposite party No. 1 was partly allowed and the directions are issued to reinstate opposite party No. 1 forthwith. 2. As per the pleadings of the writ petition, the brief facts of the case are as under : The opposite party No. 1 was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) vide order dated 23.1.1992 and joined on 10.2.1992 at Kendriya Vidyalaya KRIBHCO Town and as per the provisions of para 5(1) of transfer guidelines, the Principal and Chairman Kendriya Vidyalaya, KRIBHCO Surat recommended the transfer of opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 10.4.2000 and the opposite party No. 1 was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, KRIBHCO, Surat to Kendriya Vidyalaya, National Thermal Power Corporation, Jhanor by means of order dated 13.12.2000. The opposite party No. 1 was relieved from Kendriya Vidyalaya, KRIBHCO, Surat on 22.12.2000. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, National Thermal Power Corporation, Jhanor intimated by means of letter dated 18.1.2001 that opposite party No. 1 has neither joined her duties in Kendriya Vidyalaya, National Thermal Power Corporation, Jhanor nor sent any communication. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 22 of the Memorandum of Rules of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Board of Governors has in its meeting held on 17th July, 2000 framed and inserted Article 81(d)-’Voluntary Abandonment of Service’ in the Education Code. It is also clarified that in cases where a teacher/employee has been transferred but has not joined at such place, the powers and functions of an appointing authority shall continue to be exercised by the appointing authority from where a teacher/employee has been transferred till such teacher/employee joins at his new place of posting. Since opposite party No. 1 has not reported her duties at transferred place i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya Jhanor, therefore, show-cause notice was issued under Article 81(d) (3) of the Education Code for provisional loss of lien on the post held by her as she remained absent w.e.f. 23 December, 2000 without sanctioned leave, vide order dated 8.2.2001 through registered post and she was called upon to submit written representation to the Assistant Commissioner within ten days. 3. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, New Delhi asked vide letter dated 13.3.2001 that in case Smt. B.R. Pandey (opposite party No. 1) has submitted any application for leave, the same may be forwarded to the Headquarter and in reply to the same, the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan, Ahmedabad Region informed to the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) by means of letter dated 16.3.2001 that opposite party No. 1 has sent letter dated 15.2.2001 along with a copy of out door patient ticket No. 28430 from Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow and she did not apply for any kind of leave. The memorandum dated 31.5.2001 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ahmedabad to opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 was given another opportunity to submit her representation or present herself before the competent authority for personal hearing on 22.6.2001. The opposite party No. 1 neither submitted her representation in pursuance of memorandum dated 31.5.2001 nor she appeared on the date fixed for personal hearing and, therefore, order dated 28.8.2001 was passed and issued to her through registered post confirming the order of voluntary abandonment of service w.e.f. 23.12.2000, according to which she is deemed to have been removed from service w.e.f. 23.12.2000 from the post of TGT (Sanskrit). The order dated 28.8.2001 returned back unserved, hence the same was served personally to the opposite party No. 1 through responsible employee of Kendriya Vidalaya Sanghthan, Lucknow region at her Lucknow address in presence of two witnesses. The opposite party No. 1 submitted an appeal dated 24.9.2001 to the appellate authority against the order dated 28.8.2001, which was considered and the same was disposed of vide order dated 17.6.2002. 4. The opposite party No. 1 feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.8.2001 and 17.6.2002, approached the learned Tribunal by means of Original Application No. 152 of 2003, Smt. Brij Rani Pandey v. The Joint Commissioner, D.V.S. and others. The original application of opposite party No. 1 was contested by filing counter affidavit and after exchange of pleadings, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim of opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the show-cause notice terminating the lien has not been legally served upon the opposite party No. 1 and as such the opposite party No. 1 was deprived of filing a reply to the show-cause notice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in paragraph No. 37 of the counter affidavit the petitioners have stated that “on one hand the applicant contends that the show-cause notice dated 8.2.2001 and memorandum dated 31.5.2001 were not served to her, but on the other hand the copies of the same have been annexed by her as Annexure No. 1 to the original application, which itself is a proof of receipt of the said notice and memorandum. It is also submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority is reasoned and speaking. The opposite party No. 1 has been absent w.e.f. 23.12.2000 and she did not reply to the show-cause notice dated 8.2.2001 and to the memorandum dated 31.05.2001. She has also failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing granted to her. It is further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that provisions of Article 81(d) of the Education Code has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, which provides that if an employee has been absent/remains absent without sanctioned leave or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall provisionally lose his lien on his post unless he returns within fifteen calendar days of the commencement of the absence or the expiry of the leave originally granted or subsequently extended as the case may be and since the opposite party No. 1 remained absent w.e.f. 23.12.2000 as such the order giving effect to 23.12.2000 has been issued according to the Article 81(d) of the Education Code. 6. Though appearance has been put in on behalf of opposite party No. 1, but no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, this Court has left with no option except to proceed and examine the validity of the order impugned before the learned Tribunal and judgment of the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the record of the writ petition. 7. The perusal of Application annexed with the writ petition shows that the opposite party No. 1 approached the learned Tribunal challenging the removal order dated 28.8.2001 from service as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) from Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC, Jhanoor, Gujrat as well as the appellate order. 7. The perusal of Application annexed with the writ petition shows that the opposite party No. 1 approached the learned Tribunal challenging the removal order dated 28.8.2001 from service as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) from Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC, Jhanoor, Gujrat as well as the appellate order. It has been mentioned by opposite party No. 1 that in pursuance to her appointment she joined at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Crichco town on 10.2.1992 and was staying there with her two minor children. In the year 1997 Mr. M.S. Rathore, Principal of the said School started attempting to make physical contact with opposite party No. 1, which was strongly opposed and resisted by her as she was not under any circumstance to compromise with her modesty and character. It has further been mentioned in the application that it has become the routine to make unwelcoming remarks and to cause harassment and mental torture to her in various ways. The resistance of opposite party No. 1 resulted in various punishment, namely, punished by stopping three annual increments in the time scale vide order dated 29.11.1999 and further punished by stopping two annual increments in the time scale vide order dated 20.12.2002 and opposite party No. 1 was also transferred from her posting to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, Jhanoor just in the middle of the academic session. 8. It has further been mentioned in the application that opposite party No. 1 made written complaint against the Principal regarding his rude conduct and sexual harassment to the Assistant Commissioner on 1.12.1999 and an enquiry was conducted by Mrs. J.N. Kashyap, Education Officer K.V.S. Ahemadabad region and Mrs. Sarita Naswa, Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya School, O.N.G.C., who submitted their report to the Assistant Commissioner on 6.4.2000 confirming the allegations made by opposite party No. 1, but no justice was done to her and she was compelled to make a complaint before the National Council for Woman on 25.5.2000 and also filed complaint to National Human Rights Commission on 12.10.2000 where matter is still under consideration. 9. The record further shows that opposite party No. 1 was on leave on 21.12.2000 and 22.12.2000 and from 23.12.2000 to 1.1.2001, the school was closed for X-mas holidays. When on 2.1.2001 opposite party No. 1 went to school to join her duties, she was served relieving order which was passed on 22.12.2000. 9. The record further shows that opposite party No. 1 was on leave on 21.12.2000 and 22.12.2000 and from 23.12.2000 to 1.1.2001, the school was closed for X-mas holidays. When on 2.1.2001 opposite party No. 1 went to school to join her duties, she was served relieving order which was passed on 22.12.2000. The opposite party No. 1 could not venture to join her duty at the place of transfer, hence she requested the Assistant Commissioner vide her application dated 2.1.2001 to help her and send further instructions to her at her permanent address. The opposite party No. 1 also sent application for leave supported by medical certificates. The pleading further shows that the show-cause notice dated 8.2.2001 was never served and memorandum dated 31.5.2001 was also never served on the opposite party No. 1, which were said to be sent through registered post and as such impugned order of removal dated 28.8.2001 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 10. The learned Tribunal examined the issue and came to the conclusion that the notice sent to opposite party No. 1 was not legally served and it had returned back. The learned Tribunal also relied on the judgment in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others, (1994) SCC (L & S) 562, in which it has been held that the service of letter on a Government employee through postal mode cannot be legally presumed when it has been sent by sender to the addressee and the addressee was not found available on the postal address. The learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the report of postal authorities and came to the conclusion that notice was never served upon the opposite party No. 1 and thus she has been deprived of filing reply. The learned Tribunal refrained to make any finding on merit on the issue that the order of removal from service was communicated on 28.8.2001, whereas the punishment order has been given effect from 23.12.2000. The learned Tribunal set aside the impugned order of removal with a liberty to initiate the proceedings from the stage of an affording a reasonable opportunity to opposite party No. 1 on preferring her reply to the show-cause notice and thereafter the decision would be taken in accordance with law. 11. The learned Tribunal set aside the impugned order of removal with a liberty to initiate the proceedings from the stage of an affording a reasonable opportunity to opposite party No. 1 on preferring her reply to the show-cause notice and thereafter the decision would be taken in accordance with law. 11. On consideration of material on record, it is admitted position that the show-cause notice dated 8.2.2001 and the memorandum dated 31.5.2001 were never received by the opposite party No. 1 and appellate authority has also not appreciated the grievance raised by the opposite party No. 1 in its true spirit. 12. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of removal on account of violation of principles of natural justice and also given opportunity to the petitioners to initiate the proceeding from the stage of an affording a reasonable opportunity to opposite party No. 1. 13. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the memo of Original Application, this Court do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order of learned Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition does not warrant any interference and is hereby dismissed. —————