The main legal point established is that in cases of termination of service, the principle of natural justice must be followed, and if the order of termination suffers from any stigma, the requirement to follow the principle of natural justice becomes mandatory.

ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The instant appeal is under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2005) whereby and whereunder the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in Case No. 47/2010 (JET) by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi is under challenge whereby and whereunder the order of separation from service by way of termination vide office order dated 18.09.2010 has been refused to be interfered with.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the memo of appeal, which are required to be enumerated, read as under:

The appellant was appointed as Vice Principal of Guru Govind Singh Public School, Dhanbad vide letter dated 01.04.2009 after fulfilling all regular process of employment.

The appellant has successfully completed one year of probation period as Vice Principal of the School and as per the appointment letter, after completion of one year of probation period, his service in the post of Vice Principal was to be considered for confirmation.

The appellant had been working continuously since the date of his appointment and no complaint was ever made by the respondents for his ability and performance of his duty.

It is the further case of the appellant that as per the letter of appointment, the appellant has completed one year probation on 1.4.2010 in the post of Vice Principal and there is no extension of period of probation and the service of the petitioner is confirmed and the appellant was granted an annual increment in salary.

It has been stated that after seeing the fair dealings, working style and his dedication, he was advised to take the charge of officiating principal of the Institution within a very short period.

It is the case of the appellant that one Annual Increment had been given to the appellant after satisfactory performance and incidental report which also proves his performance approved by the controlling authority of the school. But the school management suddenly decided about the termination of the service of the appellant arbitrarily, unilaterally and abrupt manner without giving any notice or show-cause and a reasonable opportunity to the appellant and issued termination letter No. GGES/CORS/ DHN/146-2010 dated 18.9.2010 under the signature of the President of the said school without assigning any reason for such termination.

It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as the Vice Principal of the respondent school on 01.04.2009 by virtue of letter of appointment dated 31.03.2009. The aforesaid letter of appointment contains a condition as condition No. 1 that the services of the appellant will be on probation for 12 months which may be extended if so required. During the period of probation, the services may be terminated by one month’s notice on either side or in lieu of one month’s salary.

The grievance of the appellant is that all of a sudden and without any communication, the office order was issued on 18.09.2010 by which the service has been terminated by giving one month’s salary amounting to Rs. 20,837/-.

The appellant, being aggrieved with the decision of the management by which he was terminated from service, has approached to the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) assailing the impugned order inter-alia on the ground that the order of termination has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and, as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The further prayer has been made for reinstatement in service with all back salary and other consequential benefits.

The Tribunal has called upon the management. The management has taken the ground that the appellant is not entitled for any opportunity to be given before taking decision for termination from service in view of the fact that the service of the appellant was on probation and on the date of termination, i.e. on 18.09.2010, his status was of a temporary employee and, as such, as per the condition stip