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 the Act of 1989 were duly complied, but ignoring these aspects, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and quashed the removal order. Counsel submits that after removal from service the respondent got appointment in Jaipur School, Jaipur on 11.9.2006 and she was given compulsory retirement on 2.4.2022, hence she was in employment because her removal order was not stigmatic. Counsel submits that impugned judgment was passed by the Tribunal on 10.8.2011 and there was no interim order passed by this court and even then the respondent did not file any application for execution of the judgment dated 10.8.2011, which indicates that the respondent was working in another School. Counsel submits that prior approval or consent of the Director of Education was not required. Only intimation was required to be given and the same was given to the District Education Officer on 28.9.2004. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the impugned judgment dated 10.8.2011 be quashed and set aside.
