The Allahabad High Court has set aside a judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing the reinstatement of Sanjay Singh, a probationary Work Experience Teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dinjan, Assam, whose services were terminated by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) in 2009. The court ruled that as a probationer, Singh did not have the legal right to challenge the termination, which was based on his unsatisfactory service record and unauthorized absence.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated when Sanjay Singh, appointed as a Work Experience Teacher on November 19, 2008, was alleged to have remained absent without permission from December 13, 2008, despite being required to report for duty by December 5, 2008. Although Singh claimed that he had been granted leave due to the cold weather and lack of proper winter clothing, the KVS contested this claim, stating that no formal leave had been sanctioned. Upon his return on January 8, 2009, Singh was not allowed to rejoin his duties, leading to a series of communications and representations, including a police complaint lodged by Singh against the school authorities.
The KVS issued a show-cause notice to Singh on May 28, 2009, proposing his termination for unauthorized absence. Although this notice was later withdrawn, Singh’s services were terminated on August 19, 2009, following the completion of a one-month notice period, as per the terms of his probationary appointment.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issue before the High Court was whether Singh’s termination was a case of “termination simpliciter” or a punitive action necessitating a formal inquiry. The Tribunal had earlier ruled in favor of Singh, directing his reinstatement with full benefits, interpreting the termination as punitive due to the allegations of unauthorized absence.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
A bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar analyzed the case in detail, focusing on whether the termination order was based on any misconduct or if it was a simple discharge of a probationer’s service due to unsuitability. The court reiterated that a probationer does not have a right to hold the post if found unsuitable, and such a termination does not require a formal inquiry unless it is punitive in nature.
Quoting from the judgment in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences (1999), the court stated:
“If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and will be bad.”
However, the court noted that in Singh’s case, no inquiry was conducted, and the termination was based on an overall assessment of his suitability as a teacher during his probation. The court stated:
“The mere issuance of a show-cause notice and its subsequent withdrawal would not indicate a punitive termination. The KVS’s action was actuated with motive and not foundation, making the termination a simpliciter discharge.”
Observations on Probationary Service
The court emphasized that a probationer’s service could be terminated without assigning any reason, as long as the termination is not stigmatic. It cited several precedents, including Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court distinguished between termination based on unsuitability and punitive action requiring an inquiry.
Allowing the writ petition filed by the KVS (Writ – A No. 16078 of 2018), the High Court set aside the CAT’s order and dismissed Sanjay Singh’s original application, reiterating the discretionary power of employers over probationary employees. The court’s decision reaffirms that probationers, who are yet to be confirmed, do not enjoy the same protection as permanent employees against termination, unless the termination is found to be punitive.
Parties Involved:
– Petitioners: Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others, represented by Advocate Devendra Pratap Singh.
– Respondents: Sanjay Singh and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, represented by Advocate Arvind Srivastava III.
Case Number: Writ – A No. 16078 of 2018.
