Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts which led to the termination of the Applicant reveal that the Applicant while working as Principal, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (BVB) School at Vikram Nagar, M. P. was selected and appointed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) as Principal of its School vide letter dated 20.8.1992 (Annexure-1). He reported to Regional Office of NVS at Lucknow on 23.12.1992 and joined as Principal of NVS School at Gumla, Bihar. It is the case of the Applicant that when he demanded to get his provident fund, gratuity from the BVB where he worked for 11 years, including 4 years as Principal, the concerned authority of BVB became annoyed and conspired to interfere in the peaceful working of the Applicant. The NVS Deputy Director vide his letter dated 6.7.1993 (Annexure-2) informed the Applicant that certain serious financial irregularities committed by him were brought to the notice of NVS by the authority of BVB, which he replied by his letter dated 30.07.1993 (Annexure-3) informing inter alia that he was appreciated by BVB for his work as Principal. Copy of those appreciation letters are at Annexure 4, 5 and 6. The Applicant also furnished copy of No Dues Certificate, Relieving Letter and Audit Report in support of his innocence. It is averred by the Applicant that as his provident fund, gratuity etc. were not released by BVB, he filed Petition No.28/1993 before the District Consumer Court of Gumla which was decided in his favour vide order dated 29.6.1994 directing the BVB to pay him Rs.60474.60. This annoyed the BVB authorities further; as a result, false allegations were leveled against him and influenced the Respondent No.2. In the meantime, the Applicants probation period with NVS, which was completing on 23.12.1994, was extended for a period of 6 months vide letter dated 21.12.1994 (Annexure-10). The probation of the Applicant was extended for the second time for a period of 37 days only i.e. up to 1.8.1995 vide letter dated 5.6.1995 (Annexure-11) wherein it was stated that the Applicant should show improvement in his performance during the extended period of probation. This being so, the Applicant was transferred to join Navodaya Vidyalaya, Karimganj, Assam, vide letter dated 10.5.1995 (Annexure-12). The said transfer letter was received by him on 23.6.1995 and on 24.7.1995 when he reported at the Regional Office, he was directed vide order dated 25.7.1995 (Annexure-13) to remain attached with the Regional Office at Shillong until further orders. The Applicant avers that when he visited the NVS Regional Office at Patna on 18.9.1995, he received a letter dated 7.4.1995 (Annexure-14) in which it was alleged that certain incidents took place during the Board examination at the School in Gumla and he was incapable of providing prudent leadership to the Vidyalaya. It is the case of the Applicant that neither the letter was served on him, nor he was timely informed of the content of the same. On 26.9.1995, he gave his reply to the Deputy Director, Shillong with whom he was attached then. It is stated that the termination order dated 5.7.1995 (Annexure-16) was served on him on 28.9.1995 and on that date he was relieved of his duties (Annexure-17). The Applicant submitted a representation dated 18.10.1995 (Annexure-18) requesting Director, NVS to review the order of terminating his service, and followed up with letters dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure-19) and 28.11.1995 (Annexure-20). As he was not getting any response from the NVS on his representations and having been aggrieved by the termination order, he moved the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.404 of 1996 , which on transfer to this Tribunal has been registered as TA 1471 of 2009. The Applicants has sought the following relief(s) :-

Any other relief or order that this Honble Court deems fit and proper be also granted to petitioner against respondent.

3. The main contention of Ms. Jyoti Singh learned counsel for the Applicant is that the order of termination is punitive and stigmatic and such termination was done without granting opportunity for him to defend his case and therefore the Tribunal should quash and set aside the order of termination. She submitted that the Applicant was issued warning and memos informing about blast that took place during the examination and the allegations of financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Applicant when he was Principal of Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan. Though the Applicant had submitted his clarification and explanation to the notice issued by the NVS authorities on BVB letter there was no necessity for NVS to issue such letters as the BVB Schools were not Government schools nor there is any link between NVS and BVB. She also drew our attention to the claims of gratuity etc. filed by the Applicant in the Consumer Forum against the BVB Management which was decreed in favour of the Applicant. This action of the Applicant seems to have angered the BVB Management which was reflected by alleging unjustified misconducts of the Applicant to the NVS Management. Further, she submitted that the inquiry conducted by two Assistant Directors which brought out certain financial irregularities and other misconducts which no doubt were the alleged misconducts against him which became the basis initially for extension of his probation and subsequently termination of the Applicants service from NVS. She submitted that the Tribunal should lift the veil by going into the records submitted by the Respondents which would clearly reveal that action of the Applicant though not reflected in the termination order but implicitly were stigmatic and punitive in nature. In this context, she laid her reliance on many judgments and the important being the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2503/2008 between Deepak Kumar Versus Government of NCTD & Others decided on 8.12.2009; Shri Desh Raj Versus Government of NCTD & Another in OA No.266/2006 decided on 27.07.2007; Dr. B. M. Veerabhadraiah Versus Union of India & Others decided on 7.05.1996 by the Honble High Court of Guwahati. She also contended that though the termination order seems to be innocuous and simple but the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents clearly revealed three incidents in which the Applicant had been allegedly associated and those were in the nature of alleged misconduct for which the Applicant should have been given opportunity to defend himself to prove his innocence. The termination, she submits, is not based on assessment of Applicants performance as Principal, more specifically, about his suitability or otherwise as Principal but the Applicant has been the victim of the punitive steps taken by the Respondents behind his back and, therefore, she submitted that the TA should be allowed and the Applicant should be reinstated with all consequential benefits including the back wages.

14. In the back drop of the above position in law in the issues, we may delve deep into the facts of the case, go behind the termination order to find out whether the parameters prescribed by the judgments are fulfilled to term the termination order as punitive or not.

15. The facts admittedly reveal the Applicant earlier working as the Principal in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan School was selected and appointed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) as Principal vide letter dated 20.8.1992 which he joined as Principal of NVS School at Gumla, Bihar after reporting to the Regional Office of NVS at Lucknow on 23.12.1992. His probation period was for 2 years and he was expected to complete the same on 22.12.1994, but the Applicants probation period with NVS was extended for a period of 6 months vide letter dated 21.12.1994 and again the probation was second time extended for a period of 37 days only i.e. up to 1.8.1995 vide letter dated 5.6.1995. Three DPC meetings were held on 15.11.1994; 02.6.1995; and 04.7.1995 to assess the Applicants performance during the said probation period. It is on the basis of the 3rd DPC meeting recommendations that the termination order of the Applicant was issued vide order dated 05.7.1995, which the Applicant received only on 28.9.1995 and was relieved on the same day. The delay is alleged to be due to the order sent to wrong address. Be that as it may, we take the extract of both the impugned orders for scrutiny with the help of the records produced by the Respondents. The orders read as follows:

17. We perused the file dealing with the meeting of DPC to consider the successful completion or otherwise of the Probation of the Principals of NVS. On 15.11.1994, 7 - Member DPC headed by Ms. Neeru Nanda, Director, NVS considered the performance, overall capability in managing the coeducational residential Schools as reflected in the ACRs / SPRs, Audit Reports and other related documents available on record, and in case of the Applicant, the DPC recommended extension of his probation period for a duration of 6 months. The next meeting of the DPC took place on 2.6.1995, where his probation was further extended up to 1.8.1995. In case of the Applicant, 3rd DPC of NVS met on 4.7.1995 to take a decision pertaining to completion of extended period of probation. The copy of the minutes of the 3rd DPC of NVS meeting held on 4.7.1995 shows that 5 were present (Chairperson, 3 Members and Member Secretary) but the minutes were signed by only two of them viz, a Member (C.A.S Raghavan) and Member-Secretary (O. P. Kumar). Three others including Chairperson have not signed the minutes. We have gone through the records placed before us by the Respondents but we could not find the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 4.7.1995 duly approved by the Chairperson and other Members. In the absence of duly approved minutes of the DPC meeting held on 4.7.1995, it leaves a doubt in our mind as to whether the minutes placed before us are the correct minutes or not. If that was the correct minutes, non approval of the same by all participating officers, more specifically the Chairperson of DPC would make the minutes incomplete and not acceptable / sustainable in the eyes of law. The Applicants termination being based on such incomplete minutes which is improper administrative process for the competent authority to pass order of termination would make the termination irregular and hence illegal. On the basis of this ground alone we would have quashed the termination order. But we would move forward to lift veil to find whether there were reasons which triggered the termination of the Applicant.