Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kalyani Singh vs Union Territory Chandigarh And Ors on 28 August, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
CWP-11581-2024
2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-11581-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on 12.08.2024
Pronounced on: 28.08.2024
Ms. Kalyani Singh ......Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate
for
or the petitioner.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. Standing counsel with
Mr. Ankit Midha, Jr. Panel counsel
for
or respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
----
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition is asking for the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench in O.A.No.727/2023 as well as order dated 11.08.2022 11.08.2 passed by Director of Higher Education, Chandigarh whereby the contract of the petitioner has been terminated retrospectively w.e.f.15.06.2022 and order/letter dated 07.11.2023 07.11.2023,, whereby the representation of the petitioner petition was rejected.
2. Facts of the case according to the petitioner-applicant applicant in TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -2- O.A.No.727/2023 are as under:-
i) F.I.R dated 21.09.2015 was registered by the UT Police in respect of a murder that took place in Sector Sector-27, 27, Chandigarh. The deceased was identified identified as one Sh. Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu, who was known to the applicant. F.I.R. was originally investigated by U.T. Police. It was transferred to CBI, Chandigarh on 30.01.2016 and CBI accordingly recorded FIR No.0512016S accordingly No.0512016S0004 0004 dated 13.04.2016, in respect of the murder of Sh. Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu. The applicant was not named in the original FIR as it was registered on 13.04.2016 against unknown persons. The FIR was lodged prior to the initial appointment order dated dated 14.08.2017 of the applicant applicant.
ii) The respondents issued advertisement on 06.07.2017 for engagement of teaching faculty purely on contract basis for the academic session 2017-2018 2017 2018 in the respondent No.3 College. The applicant was appointed as teaching faculty in the subject of Home Hom Science cience in the respondent college by Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 14.08.2017.
14.08.2017 Contract of the applicant was extended each year thereafter. The work and conduct of the applicant has always been very good. The same is evident from the fact that the contract of the applicant was renewed/continued for every session. No warning/adverse remarks have ever been recorded over all these years. ACRs for the previous years which were got through RTI are also very good.
good
iii).. The applicant along with others had earlier filed O.A. No.245 of TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -3- 2019, praying therein that Ad Hoc employees be allowed to continue, till regular employees are selected for the posts on the Respondent College. The Th Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2019 had directed the respondents to 'maintain status quo' qua the applicants and had held the respondents free to move an application for modification/vacation of stay.
stay The interim order continued.
d.
iv) During investigation, applicant was engaged in respondent college. However, in media reports conjectural sstatement tatement were made against applicant. In the murder case, the investigating officer had filed an untraced report on 07.12.2020. In connection with the above FIR, the statement of investigating officer was recorded by the court on 14.12.2020. The applicant was arrested by the CBI on 15.06.2022 in connection with above FIR. This was informed to Respondent no.3 by 'Danik Bhasker' newspaper, telephonically on the same day, viz 15.06.2022. The applicant was in CBI custody till 20.06.2022 and thereafter in judicial judicial custody. On account of having been arrested the applicant could not attend her teaching job at the respondent Institute.
v) While the applicant was in judicial custody the contract of the applicant was terminated terminated by order dated 11.08.2022 w.e.f. 15.06.2022 retrospectively by relying on Clause 13 of the 15.06.2022 appointment letter stating that the work and conduct is not satisfactory (on account of the FIR and her arrest). This is according to applicant contrary to the letter of Principal dated 05.07.2022 where wherein in she had informed the Director Higher Education that the work and conduct of TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -4- the applicant was satisfactory and no complaint or enquiry was pending with the office.
vi) Applicant filed CRM-M M No.31518 No.31518-2022 before this Court seeking grant of regular bail and was granted bail vide order dated 13.09.2022. SLP (Cr) Dairy no. 2687 of 2023 was filed by the CBI in which notice otice was issued by the Hon'ble Hon ble Supreme Court on 27.03.2023. Immediately upon release from custody, the ap applicant plicant submitted representation dated 20.09.2022 to the respondent no. 2 (Director Higher Education), requesting that she should be reinstated and bringing to the attention the bail bail order dated 13.09.2022 of this Court. The applicant submitted another rep representation resentation dated 05.12.2022, to the Director Higher Education, but of no avail. Hence, she filed O.A in the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking restoration of her services.
vii) The respondents filed reply stating therein that the applicant was engaged engaged as teaching faculty purely on contractual basis for the session 2017-2018 2017 2018 or till her services are required whichever is earlier vide letter dated 14.08.2017.
14.08. . As per clause 4 of the terms and conditions stipulated in the engagement letter which have be been en duly agreed by the applicant, the contract signed between the parties will not confer any right to claim regular employment in education Department or any other constituent unit. As per clause No. 13 of the said engagement letter dated 14.08.2017 it was specifically mentioned that in case the work and conduct of the applicant is not found to be TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -5- satisfactory then her contract can be terminated without any notice. In the said engagement letter it was mentioned that in case the terms and conditions of said letter are acceptable only then she can submit her joining in the college concerned within a week. In compliance of clause 5 of the engagement letter dated 14.08.2017, the applicant had submitted the requisite undertaking in the shape of affidavit ffidavit by agreeing upon all the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreeing engagement letter. This all shows that the applicant had agreed upon all the terms and conditions stipulated in the engagement letter after considering all the pros and cons of the said terms and conditions and as per the Principle of estoppel she is estopped from disputing the correctness of said terms and conditions which she earlier agreed upon with her free consent.
consent
viii)
ii).. The applicant along with other contractual teaching faculty filed OA No.245 of 2019 before the CAT, Chandigarh Bench with the prayer that the adhoc employee are to be allowed to continue, if their work and conduct is satisfactory, till the regular incumb incumbents ents are selected for the posts. The Tribunal vide interim order dated 12.03.2019 directed respondents to maintain "status quo" qua the applicants.
ix).. The respondent. No.3 (Principal Principal Post Graduate College for Girls, Sector Sector-42, Chandigarh) vide letter dat dated ed 16.06.2022 informed the respondent No.2 (The The Director Higher Education, Union Territory of Chandigarh that she has received telephonic message from the office Chandigarh) TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -6- of Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper, Chandigarh on 15.06.2022 that Ms. Kalyani Singh has been arrested by the CBI in the murder case of Sippy Sidhu. Respondent No.2 (The The Director Higher Education, Union Territory of Chandigarh) Chandigarh vide letter dated 01.07.2022 intimated intima respondent No. 3 (The The Principal, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector 42 Chandigarh) Chandigarh to take immediate appropriate action as per terms of Contract against the applicant. Respondent No.2 (The The Director Higher Education, Union Territory of C Chandigarh) to satisfy itself about the arrest of the applicant, sent a letter dated 15.07.2022 to the Director, CBI, Chandigarh to share the information with regard to the date of arrest of the applicant. The respondent No.3 ((Principal Principal PGGCG 42, Chandigarh) Chandigarh vide letter dated 18.07.2022 informed respondent No.2 (The (The Director Higher Education, Union Territory of Chandigarh that the applicant was remaining absent from duty w.e.f. Chandigarh) 15.06.2022 to till date without any intimation to the college. The CBI office, Chandigarh Chandigarh vide letter dated 20.07.2022 intimated the respondent No.3 that the applicant was arrested on 15.06.2022 and was sent to judicial custody on 21.06.2022 and presently she is in judicial custody since 21.06.2022. After satisfying itself, the Director Direct Higher Education, with the prior approval of the competent authority, authori vide order dated 11.08.2022, by applying Clause No.13 of the engagement letter, letter terminated the contract of Ms. Kalyani Singh w.e.f. 15.06.2022 (i.e. date of arrest). Clause 13 states that "in case your work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, your contract can be TRIPTI SAINI terminated without any notice".
2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -7-
x) The applicant submitted her represe representations ntations dated 20.09.2022 and 05.12.2022 with the request to reinstate her on the post which she was holding prior to her arrest by stating that her bail application has been allowed by this th Court vide order dated 13.09.2022.
xi) In pursuance of representations tations submitted by the applicant, personal hearing was afforded to the applicant on 08.08.2023 vide letter dated 04.08.2023.
xii) In pursuance of letter dated 04.08.2023, applicant appeared before the Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration and during the course of hearing reiterated the pleas taken in the above said representations, with the prayer that her arrest was baseless and since she has been released on bail she may be reinstated on the post which she was holding prior to her arrest. After hearing the applicant as well as after considering her requests, the competent authority declined the requests of the applicant and she was also intimated about the same vide letter dated 07.11.2023.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the record of the case,, learned Tribunal dismissed the original application of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"16. We find Clause 13 of the appointment letter gives respondents power to terminate the contract without any notice in case work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory (Annexure A A-3).
3). In the instant TRIPTI SAINI case, the conduct of applicant was considered on the ground of FIR 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -8-
entered into by CBI and ensuing absence and custody of the applicant from 16.06.2022 to the date impugned order was passed. The respondents exercised their power as per clause 13 and issued termination order. We find this exercise of power w was as neither arbitrary nor discrimantory. We also find applicant has not raised issue of bias, malice or malafide against respondents, The respondents have given personal hearing on 8.8.2023 to applicant on her representations for reinstatement dated 20.09.2 20.09.2022 022 (Annexure A-
A
11) and 05.12.2022 (Annexure A A-12).
12). Respondents after being satisfied about arrest and custody of applicant have taken a considered opinion and have exercised power as per terms and conditions of appointment letter within the confines of la law w and nothing extraneous has crept in. We cannot find any fault with the power so exercised. The applicant had ad agreed to all terms and conditions in her engagement letter. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed in Annexure A A-1.
17. A fleeting fleeting submission was made that the impugned order is stigmatic and it is not an innocuous order as it refers to FIR, the arrest of the applicant, to her being remanded to police custody and then to judicial custody and then proceeds to terminate the serv services ices of the applicant. The applicant has stated that such stigmatic order cannot be passed except in accordance with law viz. after granting adequate opportunity in accordance with law and after holding inquiry. This submission of the applicant is negated on the ground TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -9- that as per clause 13 of the contract applicant's services can be terminated without any notice. Applicant's main grievance on this issue as per ground (vii) i.e. without adequate opportunity is not borne from contract itself. In the light of what is stated above, we find no grounds are made out to quash the impugned order.
18. The applicant has cited various case laws (Annexures A A-13 13 and A-
A
14), which on facts and circumstances and context are not applicable in this case. Reliance has been placed placed on judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Karam Singh vs. Managing Director, National Health Mission and Others 2022 (2) SCT 9 (Annexure A-13), A 13), which is not applicable on facts and circumstances. The context is totally different as as the applicant has been arrested under Section 302 of IPC which is crime against society.
19. In the light of discussion supra, we find that OA has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order to costs costs."
SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 13 of appointment order is not applicable in the present case. He further contends that word "and" is to be read in conjunctive in clause 13 of the appointment letter. Therefore, both "work" and "conduct" must be considered together and must be jointly evaluated in making the decision regarding termination. He further submits that the impugned order is stigmatic since regular enquiry has to be conducted in case of contractual and adhoc employees employees and no opportunity of hearing was given. Further that FIR cannot be solely TRIPTI SAINI sole the basis of termination. Further that termination 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -10- order cannot be passed with retrospective effect. He further contends that absence was because of the arrest and it was not wilful. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
judgments:
i) Navdeepak Sandhu Vs. Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib & Others (Division Bench of this Court),
ii) Kishori Mohab Bera Vs. State of W.B 1972 AIR (SC) 1749, (Supreme Court of India)
iii) Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna Vs. M/s Shapoorji & Company 2023 AIR (SC) 5153 (Supreme Court of India)
iv) Karam Singh Vs. Managing Director, National Health Mission and Others 2022 (2) SCT 9, (P&H High Court Single Bench)
v) Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Others 2011 (1) SCT 777 (Division Division Bench of this Court)
vi) Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta 1999 AIR (Supreme Court) 983 (Supreme Court of India)
vii) Prem Saran Bansal Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2014 (4) S.C.T 481 (P&H &H High Court Single Bench)
viii) Talwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2016 (2) S.C.T 551 (P&H High Court Single Bench) TRIPTI SAINI
ix) State of U.P and Others Vs. Ram Bachan Tripathi 2005(3) 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -11-
S.C.T 757 (Supreme Court of India)
x) State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L.Singla Civil Appeal No.4969 of 2008 (Supreme Court of India)
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of original application and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. She has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Satyender Singh 2005(7) SCC 517.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.
7. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD
i) A perusal of the record shows that on 15.06.2022, the petitioner was arrested by Central Bureau of Investigation in murder of Sippy Sidhu and the news was published in 'Dainik Bhaskar".
ii) The intimation regarding the same was sent to the Principal, Post Pos Graduate Govt. College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh and the Directorate of Higher Education Chandigarh Administration on 16.06.2022 16.06.2022.
8. On 01.07.2022 01.07.2022, Director Higher Education Chandigarh Administration, sent a letter vide Memo.No.1631 Memo.No.1631-DHE-UT-C3-12() 12()15 (Misc)/3977, dated 01.07.2022 to the Principal, Post Graduate Govt. College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh, regarding taking action as per the terms in Clause No.13 of Engagement of Teaching Faculty purely on contract basis for the Session 2017-18.
9. On 15.07.2022, vide Memo No.1676 No.1676-DHE-UT-C3-12()15 12()15 (Misc)/4290,, Director Higher Education, TRIPTI SAINI Education, Chandigarh Administration, iss issued ed a 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -12- letter to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Office, regarding intimation of arrest of Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis), Post Graduate Govt., College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh.
10. Vide Memo No.PGGCG-42/EC 42/EC-1/2022/405, 1/2022/405, dated 18.07.2022, Principal, Post Graduate Govt., College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh, wrote to the Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration, regarding absent from duty of Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor Professor in Home Science (on on Contractual Basis) w.e.f.15.06.2022 till date without any intimation to the College.
11. Vide Memo No.3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG No.3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG,, dated 20.07.2022, Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB, Chandigarh Chandigarh,, wrote to the Principal, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector 42 Chandigarh, regarding the status of Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on on contract basis) basis and informed the Principal that Ms. Kalyani Singh was arrested on 15.06.2022 and after completion completion of police remand, she was sent to judicial custody on 21.06.2022 and she was in judicial custody since 21.06.2022.
12. Thereafter, Director Higher Education, Chandigarh Administration, videe Memo No.1876-DHE-UT-C3-12()15(Misc)(Part), No.1876 (Misc)(Part), dated 05.08.2023 se sent nt a notice to Ms. Kalyani Singh, Ex-Assistant Ex Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis) for personal hearing on 08.08.2023 08.08.2023, regarding her request to join her post as Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis) in PGGCG-42, 42, Chandigarh.
Chandigarh
13. On 07.11.2023, 07.11.2023, vide Memo No.DHE No.DHE-UT-C3-12()15(Misc) (Misc) (Part)6812, Secretary Education, Chandigarh Administration, informed Ms. Kalyani Singh, that her representations/requests dated 20.09.2022, 04.10.2022 and 05.12.2022, after hearing and considering all the documents on record were TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -13- declined.
14. For proper adjudication of this case, the engagement letter of the petitioner is reproduced as under:-
under:
DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER ECUCATION CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION (COLLEGE -1 BRANCH) Additional Deluxe Building, Ist floor, Sector-9, 9, Chandigarh Chandigarh-160 009 No. DHE-UT -C1-12(13)2017 12(13)2017 Dated: 14-08-2017 To MS. KALYANI SINGH D/O SH. PARMINDER SINGH #701, SECTOR SECTOR-11 B,, CHANDIGARH.
Subject: Engagement of Teaching Faculty purely on contract basis for the session 2017 2017-2018.
You are hereby given an offer to work as Teaching Faculty on Contractual basis for teaching the subject of HOME SCIENCE in POST GRADUATE GOVT. COLLEGE FOR GIRLS, SECTOR-42, 42, CHANDIGARH on the following terms and conditions:-
1. You will be paid Rs.21,600/ Rs.21,600/- + DA in the Pay Band of Rs.(15,600-39,100) 39,100) as per Department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration instruction dated 11.08.2016 applicable on the date of engagement.
2. You will have to join place of posting within a week failing which your appointment will be terminated and offer cancelled, automatically.TRIPTI SAINI
2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -14-
3. Your contractual engagement shall be for the session 2017-2018 2018 or till your services are required whichever is earlier. You-can bee replaced immediately, consequent upon the joining/appointment on regular basis of candidates recommended/selected by UPSC or appointed on deputation from the State of Punjab/Haryana as the case may be. In such a situation/event, your contractual appointment ent will be terminated forthwith.
4. This assignment will not confer on you any right to claim regular employment in the Education Department or any other constituent unit.
5. You will give an undertaking in writing in the college concerned that you will not fi file le any claim or court case against the department for extension or for regularization of services services.
6. You will also furnish an undertaking in the college concerned that you are eligible for the above said assignment and that the educational certificate submi submitted tted by you are genuine and not fake.
7. Your contract is further subject to verification of your certificates and full compliance of eligibility as per UGC norms.
8. You will give an undertaking that you will not work in any other institute/college/department etc. during the TRIPTI SAINI present period of contract.
2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -15-
9. Your stay in the college will be as per UGC norms.
10. You can be transferred in any of Govt. Arts & Science College of Chandigarh Administration.
11. You will not be entitled to any other benefit as admissible to the regular employees employees.
12.You will take classes as per the workload allotted to you by the college authority.
13. In case your work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, your contract can be terminated without any notice.
In case the above terms and conditions are acceptable, you should submit your Joining in the college concerned within a week.
Deputy Director (Admn.) For Education Secretary Chandigarh Administration.
Endst. No. Even A copy is forwarded to the Principal, Post Graduate Govt. Collage for Girls. Sector Sector-42.
42. Chandigarh for information and necessary action.
Deputy Director (Admn.) For Education Secretary Chandigarh Administration
15. Termination order, order, dated 11.08.2022 is reproduced as under:-
DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER ECUCATION CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -16- (COLLEGE -1 BRANCH) Additional Deluxe Building, Ist floor, Sector-9, Chandigarh-160 160 009 Memo. No.DHE-UT-C3-12(15 No.DHE 12(15 (Misc) (Part)/4946 Dated: 11/8/22 And whereas, Ms. Kalyani Singh D/o Sh. Parminder Singh, #701, Sector-11-B, Sector B, Chandigarh was offered to work as teaching faculty on Contractual basis for teaching the subject of Home Science in Post Graduate Government College of Girls Sector-
Sector 42, Chandigarh vide vide this office letter No.DHE No.DHE-UT-C1-12(13)2017 12(13)2017 dated 14.08.2017 and Clause 13 of appointment which states as under: -
"In case your work and condust is not found to be satisfactory, your contract can be terminated without any notice notice".
And whereas, the Principal, rincipal, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-42, Sector 42, Chandigarh vide letter No. PGGCG-
PGGCG 42/EC 1/2022/2320 dated 16.06.2022 has informed that she has 42/EC-1/2022/2320 received telephonic message from the Office of Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh on 15.06.2022 that Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis) of their College has arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in the Murder Case of Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu @ Sippy.
And whereas, the Principal, Post Graduate Govern Government ment College for Girls, Sector-42, Sector 42, Chandigarh vide letter No. PGGCG-
PGGCG 42/EC 1/2022/398 dated 05.07.2022 has informed that Ms. Kalyani 42/EC-1/2022/398 Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis) of TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -17- their College is remaining remaining absent from duty w.ef. 15 15.06.2022 .06.2022 to till til date ate without any information to their College.
And whereas, an E-mail mail has been sent to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ( BI) on email [email protected] on dated 01.07.2022 and again requested vide E E-mail dated 15.07.2022 & vide Memo No. 1676-DHE-UT-C3-12() 1676 12()15 15 (Misc)/4290 dated 15.07.2022 regarding the date of arrest of Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis). Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-42, Sector 42, Chandigarh and the prese present nt status in this regard.
And whereas, the Principal, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-42, Sector 42, Chandigarh vide Memo No. PGGCG-
PGGCG 42/EC 1/2022/2860 42/EC-1/2022/2860 dated 21.07.202 21.07.2022 2 has sent the letter No.3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG dated 20.07.2022 received No.3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG from the Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Sector-30-A, Sector A, Chandigarh in response to Principal, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector Sector-42, 42, Chandigarh Memo No. PGGCG-42/2022/381-83 PGGCG 83 dated 29.06.2022, which states as under: -
"In this regard, it is to apprise you that Ms. Kalyani Singh was arrested in the subject cited case on 15.06.2022. After completion of police remand, she was sent tto Judicial Custody on 21.06.2022. Presently she is in Judicial custody since 21.06.2022".
TRIPTI SAINI
In view of above, as per clause No. 13 of your 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -18- appointment letter, i.e.. "in case your work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, satisfactory, your contract can bbe terminated ted without any notice" the department is of the considered opinion to exercise notice"
powers in terms and conditions of your appointment letter, your contract is hereby terminated with effect from 15.06.2022 (i.e. date of arrest).
Sd/-
Director Higher Education, For Education Secretary Chandigarh Administration To Ms. Kalyani Singh Assistant Professor in Home Science (on Contractual Basis) Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh.
NOW DEALING WITH THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
16. Judgments referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner:-
petitioner:
i) (a) Navdeepak Sandhu Vs. Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, (b) Fatehgarh Sahib & Others (Division Bench of this Court), (c) Kishori Mohab Bera Vs. State of W.B 1972 AIR (SC) 1749 (Supreme Court Judgment), (d) Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna Vs. M/s Shapoorji & Company 2023 AIR (SC) 5153:-
5153: All the above above-mentioned ioned judgment are with reference to word "and" to be read as conjunctive.
In the present case clause 13 says work and conduct. Even if, we give conjunctive reading to the same, the petitioner remained absent from work for 58 consecutive days without in informing forming the TRIPTI SAINI college or applying for leave or seeking temporary vacation or even 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -19- phone call from the family, thereby affecting the college schedule and studies of the students. Conduct of the petitioner is shown from the fact that the FIR No. RC5102165S000 RC5102165S0004, 4, dated 13.04.2016 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 120 120-B, B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27/54 Arms Act (added later). Therefore, even the conjoint reading of both "work" and "conduct" of the petitioner were not satisfactory.
ii) Karam Singh Vs. Managing Director, National Health Mission and Others 2022 (2) SCT 9 (P&H Single Bench), Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Others 2011 (1) SCT 777 (Divi (Division Bench of this Court) :- In the judgments referred to above it is held that before terminating departmental enquiry is must.
Both the judgments would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner since the petitioner is convicted under Sections 30 302, 2, 120-B, 120 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/27/54 of Arms Act, which crime against society.
iii) Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta 1999 AIR (Supreme Court) 983 (Supreme Court of India):-
In This case pertains to the case of probationer wherein he was terminated during probation. Present is the case of contractual employee. Accordingly, this judgment would not applicable in the present case.
iv) Prem Saran Bansal Vs. State of Punjab aand nd Others 2014 (4) TRIPTI SAINI S.C.T 481 (Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench) Bench):- This 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -20-
judgment relates to the regular employee whereby his services were terminated by resorting the provisions of Articles 311(2)(b) and 311 (3) of the Constitution of India, mainl mainly y on the ground that the FIR was registered against the petitioner.
The facts of the present case are totally different. In the present case, the petitioner is contractual employee and her engagement was on the year to year basis. And it is not only be because cause of the registration of FIR that her services are terminated but, for almost 58 days she was absent from duty without informing by any mode, personally or through family.
v) Talwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others 2016 (2) S.C.T 551 (P&H Single Singl Bench):-- This is again the case where the dismissal was during the probation period on account of registration of FIR and subsequently the petitioner was acquitted by the Court.
The facts of the present case are altogether different. This judgment is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
vi) State of U.P and Others Vs. Ram Bachan Tripathi 2005(3) S.C.T 757 (Supreme Court of India) India):- This is the case where termination of service is on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty without leave and termination is from the date of absence. In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of termination while granting liberty to the State to proceed afresh because on the date of hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the State before the Tribunal. In this TRIPTI SAINI case the respondent was selected by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -21- Commission.
In the present case the petitioner is a contractual employee and accordingly this judgment is also not app applicable licable in the case of the petitioner.
vi) State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L.Singla Civil Appeal No.4969 of 2008 (Supreme Court of India):
India):- Here again the respondent is a doctor and regular employee in service of State of Punjab. He was absent from duty for nearly nearly five years.
This judgment would also not be applicable in the case of the petitioner.
All the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply in the case of the petitioner, who is engaged on contract basis for one session (2017-2018) (2017 2018) which was extended because of 'status quo' order dated 12.03.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh.
17. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana Vs. Satyender Singh 2005(7) SCC 518. The relevant paras of the same are reproduced as under:
under:-
""2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was appointed as Medical Officer in the Directorate of Health Services, Haryana by an order dated 6.11.1997 on a fixed salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month for a period of six months from the date of joining.
g. It was clearly indicated in the letter of appointment that the services of the employee being on TRIPTI SAINI contractual basis could be terminated at any time without 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -22- assigning any reason with 24 hours notice from either side. By order dated 25.3.2002 services of tthe he employee were terminated. The same was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition.
3. Before the High Court it was urged by the writ petitioner that the order of termination, though in the face of it appears to be termination simpliciter, simpliciter, was relatable to alleged misconduct and, therefore, was penal in nature. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. P.V. Swaminathan, 2001(3) SCT 128 (SC) : (20 (2001(10) 01(10) SCC
83) to contend that the order of termination was founded on the alleged misconduct as stated in the order dated 25.3.2002. The formal order of termination involved adverse civil consequences. The stand of the opposite parties before the High Cou Court rt (appellants herein) was that the misconduct may have provided a motive for the order of termination but not a foundation. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the misconduct referred to was the foundation and not the motive. As the order involved involved civil consequences, therefore, the same could not have been passed without complying Principles of Natural Justice. The order was according to the High Court stigmatic.
In the order passed by the State Government dated 25.3.2002 reference was made to to the alleged misconduct of the employee and on the basis thereof the order of termination dated 11.4.2002 was passed. It was accordingly held that the employee was entitled to all TRIPTI SAINI the consequential benefits along with re re-instatement.
instatement. Liberty was,
2024.09.13 15:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-11581-2024
2024 (O&M) -23-
however, given to proceed further after complying with statutory rules governing service of the employees or the rules of natural justice as the case may be.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of termination as passed did not refer to aany ny misconduct. It was a case of termination simpliciter. The reference to the misconduct of the employee as contained in the order dated 11.4.2002 was in relation to the allegations made against the employee, and no inquiry was conducted or finding of guilt guilt arrived at. After perusing the appointment order and the entire record the Government took the decision to relieve the employee from suspension for termination in terms of appointment order with immediate effect. The misconduct alleged and referred to at the most can be treated as the motive for the order of termination but it was not the foundation.
* * * *
10. We find that the High Court did not consider the question of stigma or the effect of any enquiry held before the order of termination was passed. The question whether the enquiry purportedly held provided the motive or the foundation was required to be considered by the High Court in detail. That has not been done. The question whether termination of service is simpliciter or punitive has been been examined in several cases e.g. Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, 2002(2) SCT 358 (SC) :
(2002(1) SCC 520) after survey of most of the earlier decisions TRIPTI SAINI touching the question observed as to when an ord order er of termination 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -24- can be treated as simpliciter and when it can be treated as punitive and when a stigma is said to be attached to an employee discharged during the period of probation. The learned counsel on either side referred to and relied on these dec decisions isions either in support of their respective contentions or to distinguish them for the purpose of application of the principles stated therein to the facts of the present case. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) after referring to various decisions decisions it was indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations of misconduct and when complaints could be only as a motive for passing such a simple order of termination. In para 21 of the said judgment a distinction distinction is explained thus :
"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. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad.
ad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the TRIPTI SAINI allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -25- simple order of termination would be valid. From a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination either is thin or overlapping. It may be difficult either to categorize or classify strictly orders of termination simpliciter iter falling in one or the other category, based on misconduct as foundation for passing the order of termination simpliciter or on motive on the ground of unsuitability to continue in service."
18. In view of the ratio of the above referred to judgment, there is no infirmity in the order of termination dated 11.08.2022.
19. CONCLUSION
i) There is no denial to the factum of arrest of the petitioner on 15.06.2022 in connection with FIR No. RC510216S0004 dated 13.04.2016 13.04.2016.
ii) While she was in judicial custody she was terminated by order dated 11.08.2022 w.e.f 15.06.2022, retrospectively by relying on clause 13 of the Engagement Letter, stating that the work and conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory (on account of FIR and her arrest).
iii) A perusal rusal of the engagement letter shows that this engagement is purely on the contract basis and just for the Session of the year 2017 2017-18. Clause 13 as referred to above specifically reads that in case TRIPTI SAINI your work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, your contract 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -26- can be terminated without any notice. She was granted extension for the session 2018-2019.
2018
iv) She alongwith other contractual employees file filed OA No.245/2019 praying therein that adhoc employees be allowed to continue till regular employees are se selected lected for the post in the college colle and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2019 directed the coll college to maintain 'status quo'' qua the applicants in the OA No.245/2019 which included the petitioner. Therefore, it is not the good work of the petitioner because of which she continued but because of the interim directions of the learned Tribunal.
v) FIR was registered on 21.09.2015 and was originally investigated by U.T.Police.
vi) Itt was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation tion (CBI), Chandigarh on 30.01.2016 and then CBI accordingly recorded FIR No. RC510216S0004, dated 13.04.2016 in respect of murder of Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu.
vii) The FIR was lodged prior to the initial appointment order dated 14.08.2017. The petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2022 in connection with the above referred to FIR and the same was informed to respondent No.3, Principal Post Graduate College For Girls, Sector Sec 42, Chandigarh by "Dainik Bhaskar" Newspaper. She was in CBI custody till 20.06.2022 and thereafter in judicial custody. She was released on bail on 13.09.2022 by this Court. She was terminated by order dated 11.08.2022.
TRIPTI SAINI
viii) The undisputed fact iss that from 15.06.2022 (i.e. the date of her 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -27- arrest) till 13.09.2022 (when she was released on bail), she was absent from duty. She was in CBI custody from 15.06.2022 to 20.06.2022 and in judicial custody from 21.06.2022 till the date of her release on bail il i.e. 13.09.2022. As on date she is on bail and the trial is going on.
20. A perusal of termination order shows that by taking into consideration clause 13 of the engagement letter the contract of the petitioner is terminated. Clause 13 reads as under:-
unde "In case your work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, your contract can be terminated without any notice notice."
21. The contract of the petitioner is terminated by taking into account the absence from duty of the petitioner petition w.e.f 15.06.2022 till the passing of order dated 11.08.2022.
11.08.2022. The other ground taken is that Principal, Post Graduate College For Girls, Sector 42, Chandigarh, vide letter No. PGGCG-42/EC-1/2022/2320 1/2022/2320 dated 16.06.2022 informed that she received telephonic m message essage from the O/o Dainik Bhaskar, Chandigarh on 15.06.2022 that Ms. Kalyani Singh, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on on Contractual Basis Basis) of their college was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the murder of Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu @ Sippy Sidhu. E-mails E mails were sent to Central Bureau of Investigation on 01.07.2022, 15.07.2022, regarding the date of arrest of Ms. Kalyani, Assistant Professor in Home Science (on on Contractual Basis Basis) and the status with regard to the FIR case. After that Principal, Post Graduate College For Girls, Sector 42 Chandigarh, vide Memo No. PGGCG-42/EC-1/2022/2860 PGGCG 1/2022/2860 dated 21.07.2022 sent a letter No.3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG 3364/3/04(S)/2016/CBI/SCB/CHG dated 20.07.2022 received from the Head of Branch of Central Bureau off Investigation, Special Crime Branch, Sector-
Sector 30-A TRIPTI SAINI A Chandigarh, in response to the Principal, Post Graduate College For Girls, 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -28- Sector 42, Chandigarh, vide memo dated 29.06.2022, which reads as under:
under:-
"In this regard, it is to apprise you that Ms. Kalyani S Singh ingh was arrested in the subject cited case on 15.06.2022. After completion of police remand, she was sent to Judicial Custody on 21.06.2022. Presently she is in Judicial custody since 21.06.2022".
22. This shows the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, a perusal of the termination order dated 11.08.2022 shows that it fulfil fulfill both the conditions as referred to in Clause 13 of engagement e letter etter dated 14.08.2017. W With ith respect to work, her absence from duty without informing and with respect to conduct, her arrest in a murder case.
23. We do not find any infirmity in the termination order dated 11.08.2022, since the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis as teaching faculty at the Post Graduate College for Girls Girls, Sector - 42, Chandigarh, for the subject ct of Home Science and there is a clause (13) in the engagement letter under which she was terminated.
24. While the teaching profession is indeed noble, with educational institutions regarded as temples of learning, and teachers as mentors (gurus),, the t institution cannot overlook the fact that an FIR has been registered against petitioner under Section 302 and 120-B 120 IPC alongwith Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
25. Although petitioner is not convicted, the mere pendency of such grave charges, place the institution in a position where it must act to protect its reputation and the faith reposed in it by society and the parents who entrust their children's TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -29- education to its care.
26. Allowing the petitioner, to continue in her role (Assistant Professor) under the cloud of these serious allegations, would not only set a harmful precedent, but also compromise the institutions obligation to prioritise the best interest of student and the broader public interest interest. Consequently, the termination of petitioner's titioner's service is legally justified.
27. In normal course there are certain specific columns in the application form for admission as well as recruitment in the institutions/departments, which are as under :-
a) Have you ever been arrested;
b) Have you everr been prosecuted;
c) Have you ever been kept under detention;
d) Have you ever been fined by the Court of law;
e) If any case is pending against him him/her in any Court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form;
f) If you ever have been convicted by the Court of law for any offence;
If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is 'yes' then further detail/full full particulars particular of the case/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/ sentence/ punishment etc., and/or the name of the case pending in the Court at the time of filling up of the form are required to be given.
28. The intention behind incorporation of the above-mentioned mentioned information is to examine as to whether the candidate is fit tto o be recruited/given admission in view of the societal norms.
29. Educational institutions are normally very particular about antecedents/act and conduct of the students and faculty.
TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -30-
30. Educational institutions are the makers/groomers of the best personalities.
onalities. They help in grooming the physical as well as mental personalities.
31. Normally, no institution would admit any student or faculty who is undergoing the trial under the offence against the society.
32. In the present case, the FIR was lodge lodged d against the petitioner on 21.09.2015. It was originally investigated by the U.T. Police and then transfer transfered ed to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Chandigarh on 30.01.2016 and then CBI accordingly recorded FIR No.RC510216S0004, dated 13.04.2016 in re respect spect of murder of Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu.
33. During investigation, the petitioner was engagement by respondent No.2 (Principal, Principal, Post Graduate College for Girls, Sector - 42, Chandigarh) i.e. on 14.08.2017 i.e. after lodging of above mentioned FIR dat dated 13.04.2016.
34. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are that undisputedly the petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2022 and after the completion of police remand, she was sent to judicial custody on 21.06.2022 and she was released on bail by this Court on 13.09.2022 in CRM CRM-M-31518-2022.
35. In the present case contract of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 15.06.2022 i.e. the date of her arrest vide order dated 11.08.2022.
36. A perusal of the dates as mentioned above shows that even oon the date of passing of the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner the petitioner was in jail.
37. It was only vide order dated 13.09.2022 passed in CRM-M-31518 31518- 2022 that she was released on bail.
38. Since there was a long absence from duty without any information to the college by the petitioner or her family members, the contract of the petitioner TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -31- was terminated w.e.f. 15.06.2022 i.e. the date of arrest vide order dated 11.08.2022.
39. We do not find find any infirmity in the order dated 11.08.2022 since because of long absence of the teacher, the students were suffering and even the college was not aware about the reason of the absence from duty.
40. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was illiterate, literate, therefore could not inform the college by any mode of communication even if she was arrested. The information could be sent through the family members as well. This further shows the casual and irresponsible behaviour of the petitioner towards her h job.
41. The engagement of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and it has been specified in Clause 13 of the Engagement Letter that in case the work and conduct of the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory satisfactory,, her contract can be terminated without any notice. This condition was accepted by her by joining the college and signing the engagement letter. Therefore, since the engagement of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and that too for one session which was extended because of the order of the Tribunal of status quo in OA No.245/2019 /2019 dated 12.03.2019 wherein the petitioner-herein petitioner n was also one of the applicant, she s cannot plead that it was because of her good work that she was continuing .
42. Further Further-more the charges against the petitioner in the FIR are under Section 302 and 120-B 120 IPC alongwith Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act Act,, which are the offences against the society.
43. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 11.08.2 11.08.2022 022 whereby the contract of the petitioner was terminated under clause 13 of the engagement letter and Clause 13 is one of the terms and conditions which the TRIPTI SAINI 2024.09.13 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11581-2024 2024 (O&M) -32- petitioner agreed to while accepting the engagement. Therefore, in our opinion the condition in clause lause 13 is fulfilled for termination of the contract without any notice as per the work and conduct of the petitioner.
44. In view of the above, we do not fin find any infirmity in the impugned order/judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A No.727/2023 as well as order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Chandigarh. Therefore, we affirm the same.
same Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismiss dismissed being devoid of any merit.
45. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR
SURESHWAR THAKUR)
THAKUR (SUDEEPTI
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 28, 2024
tripti
Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes / No
TRIPTI SAINI
2024.09.13 15:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document