Termination of services must comply with statutory requirements of notice or salary in lieu, and failure to do so renders the order illegal.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 23.11.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur whereby termination order dated 11.03.2000 passed by the petitioner-Institution for terminating services of respondent No.1 has been quashed and set aside with relief of reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 was appointed on 09.02.1994 as Teacher in Jain Higher Secondary School, Tijara, which was being run by Jain Shiksha Samiti, Tijara. Earlier, when probation period of the respondent No.1 was extended by the Management Committee of the Institution, he preferred applications before the Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal, which were allowed vide order dated 30.07.1999 directing for confirmation of respondent No.1 under Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1993') and also directed for making payment of annual grade increment and DA.

3. Thereafter, an order dated 11.03.2000 was issued by the Chairman of petitioner-Samiti, terminating the services of the respondent No.1 in exercise of proviso III Rule 39(2)(h) of the Rules of 1993 after taking approval from District Education Officer, Secondary School, Alwar. Termination order dated 11.03.2000 was challenged by respondent No.1 by way of filing Appeal No.28/2000 before the Tribunal on the ground that after appointment, the respondent No.1 had rendered satisfactory services for which certificates were also issued in his favour by the competent authority. However, by levelling incorrect allegations, in quite mala fide manner, earlier his probation period was extended, which was challenged by him before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent No.1 to confirm him in service and to grant other service benefits to him.

4. It was stated in the appeal that on 22.09.1999, the respondent No.1 received one questionnaire issued by the Principal of the School, which was followed by another similar letter dated 15.01.2000 issued by the Additional District Education Officer, Alwar. Respondent No.1 stated that although there were directions of granting annual grade increments and other benefits after confirmation in the services of the petitioner, however, same was not complied with by the petitioner-Institution, therefore, respondent No.1 submitted representations and only on account of the fact that the petitioner/respondent No.1 had agitated his grievance before the competent forum, his services were discontinued and on 13.03.2000 when he reported in school, he was not allowed to put his signature in attendance register and upon inquiry was informed that his services have been terminated and termination letter has been sent through post.

5. It has further stated in memo of appeal that when the respondent No.1 received an envelope, after opening the same, he found the termination letter dated 11.03.2000 in the envelope mentioning therein that his services have been terminated in exercise of powers under proviso III to Rule 39(2)(h) of the Rules of 1993 after taking due approval. Although, it was also mentioned in the termination letter dated 11.03.2000 that as per proviso III, six months advance salary has been paid and a reference of cheque was also given in the termination letter but the res