JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. This petition is directed against an order dated 19-4-2001 passed by the School Tribunal upholding the order terminating petitioners service during the period of probation.

3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher with effect from 2-9-1996 to 30-4-1997 on a clear and permanent post. It is also undisputed that by an order dated 10-6-1997 the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and the period would have ended on 9-6-1999.

4. Petitioners services came to be terminated by an order dated 3-8-1998. This order states that the petitioners clarification has been found to be unsatisfactory, the management is of opinion that the petitioners work is found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, her services are being terminated.

5. Mr. Jibhkate, learned Counsel, for the petitioner submits that the order terminating petitioners service is punitive and must, therefore, be set aside since it is not preceded by any enquiry into the misconduct because of which the petitioner has been terminated. Admittedly, the order, on the face of it, does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. It merely states that the clarification given by the petitioner is unsatisfactory and the petitioners functioning as a teacher has been found to be unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that the termination order is preceded by a correspondence in which the management appears to have given a letter to the petitioner stating that it is reported that she has not kept the record properly and her behaviour with the teachers and the students is not proper. The letter also states that during the course of visit it was found that the petitioner has been absent and often remains absent. The letter thereafter states that since the petitioner is not functioning properly she should give an explanation as to why action should not be taken against her. This letter was replied to by the petitioner by her letter dated 31-7-1998 giving certain explanation. It must be noted that the correspondence between the petitioner and her employer was purely between them and no third person was involved. The correspondence cannot be taken to have been published in the sense known to law and cannot be to have cast a stigma on the petitioner. Therefore, what needs to be considered in such a case is the termination order itself, to see whether the termination is on the ground of misconduct. Expressly, as observed earlier, the termination order states that the clarification given by the petitioner has been found to be not satisfactory and her functioning has been found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, her services are being terminated. There is no statement in the termination order that the petitioner has been found to be guilty of any misconduct.

6. Mr. Jibhkate, learned Counsel, for the petitioner then submits that the order of termination must be read as an order which is stigmatic, since in the affidavit in reply before the School Tribunal the management has pleaded certain acts of the petitioner which amount to misconduct. This submission, even if correct, cannot be countenanced in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kuashal Kumar Shukla)1, 1991(1) S.C.C. 691, as reproduced by the Supreme Court in (Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences)2, 2002(1) All.M.R. 302. The observations read as under:

"The allegations made against the respondent contained in the counter-affidavit by way of a defence filed on behalf of the appellants also do not change the nature and character of the order of termination."

Mr. Jibhkate, learned Counsel, is right in pointing out the observations of the School Tribunal in paragraph 18, where the School Tribunal has upheld the petitioners termination "looking into the serious misconduct and unruly behaviour". What is however overlooked is the fact tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document