Stating unsatisfactory performance in the termination order does not make it stigmatic, and principles of natural justice need not be followed for termination of services of a probationer.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

W.P.(C) No.10573/2009

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment of Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 31.3.2009. By the impugned judgment, DST allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2/employee challenging the termination of her services from the petitioner-school as Primary Teacher during the extended period of probation of one year. The Tribunal set aside the termination order dated 27/29.6.1998 on the ground that the order is stigmatic.

2. Let us for the sake of convenience reproduce this termination letter dated 27/29.6.1998 and which reads as under:-

“SBPS/AN/98/947 June 27/29, 1998

OFFICE ORDER

Whereas Mrs. Mamta Yadav was appointed as Primary Teacher, in the Shiksha Bharti Sr. Secondary Public School on probation, initially for a period of one year with effect from 1.07.1996.

AND WHEREAS on first review, the Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 01.06.1997, found that the work and conduct of said Mrs. Yadav, during the initial period of probation, had not been upto the mark; that she be given another opportunity to bring needed improvement in her work and conduct.

AND WHEREAS in pursuance of aforesaid decision of the Managing Committee, the initial period of probation in respect of said Mrs.Yadav was extended for another year with effect from 1.7.1997 vide order No. SBPS/25/Staff/dated 16.06.1997.

AND WHEREAS on second review of her work during the extended period of probation, the Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 05.06.1998, noted with concern that the work and conduct of said Mrs. Yadav, during the extended period of probation, had been greately disappointing; that she lacked professional capability, careless and negligent in the matter of class work, her conduct has also been deplorable and also indulged in acts of indiscipline and insubordination; that she acted in a manner unbecoming of a teacher and the Committee reached to the conclusion that said Mrs. Mamta Yadav is not a fit person to be retained in the services of Shiksha Bharti Sr. Secondary Public School; and that it decided and RESOLVED:

“THAT THE SERVICES OF SAID MRS. MAMTA YADAV BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROBATION ON 30.06.1999.”

NOW IN PURSUANCE of the aforesaid decision of the Managing Committee, the services of Mrs. Mamta Yadav, a Primary Teacher are hereby terminated with effect from 30.06.1998 (afternoon); and that she be deemed relieved accordingly.

BY ORDER &

IN THE NAME OF MANAGING COMMITTEE SHIKSHA BHARTI SR. SECON. PUBLIC SCHOOL

MANAGER

Mrs. Mamta Yadav

C-84, Mahavir Enclave

Behind MCD School

Palam

New Delhi-110045

Copy forwarded to:-

1. The Principal, Shiksha Bharti Sr. Secondary Public School

2. The Accountant, Shiksha Bharti Sr. Secondary Public School.

3. The Education Officer, Zone XXI, Dist. South West, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

4. Personal file

MANAGER”

3. The issue is that whether stating that the employee lacked professional capability or was negligent and careless or her conduct was deplorable and had indulged in acts of indiscipline and insubordination would amount to order being stigmatic.

4. Law with respect to termination of services of a probationer is now well-settled. Termination has to be by a non-stigmatic order. However, it has been held that stating that the performance is not satisfactory or giving of facts in the termination order will not amount to the termination order being a stigmatic one. Also the principles of natural justice have not to be followed before termination of services of a probationer. If an enquiry is held and the enquiry report forms the foundation of termination of services of a probationer, only then, principles of natural justice are required to be followed, however, where the enquiry against a probationer is only for determining employee’s suitability for continuing in service and the enquiry report only forms the motive for removal (as differentiated from a foundation for removal) then, a