JUDGMENT :

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment, dated 08.01.2018, passed by District Judge-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Gurugram, setting aside the second respondent's termination order dated 17.09.2016, and holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with immediate effect with full back wages/salary along with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of his termination.

2. Facts of the case in brief are, the second respondent was appointed as co-curricular teacher at Chiranjiv Bharati School, Sushant Lok, vide letter of appointment dated 12.09.2011, Annexure P-1. He was confirmed in service as PRT-Physical Education Teacher vide letter dated 15.01.2013, Annexure P-2; after confirmation, the appointment could be determined by giving three months' notice as per clause 27 of the terms of appointment.

2.1. Chiranjiv Bharati School was taken-over by the petitioner Society with effect from 01.04.2016, as also the second respondent's services on the terms and conditions he was initially appointed. After working for some time, the petitioner served one month notice upon the second respondent for non-continuation of his service with effect from 12.09.2016. The reasons cited for the purpose were, failing to properly discharge the duties, aggressive attitude, and provoking other staff members, parents and students against the School. Pursuant thereto, he was terminated from service vide letter dated 17.09.2016. The termination was challenged by the second respondent by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 08.01.2018, ordering reinstatement as well as payment of full back wages/salary along with interest.

2.2. The judgment was rendered by the Tribunal on the following issues:

i) Whether termination of services of appellant by respondent no.1 is justified and in accordance with service contract?

ii) Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present appeal?

2.3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the second issue does not arise for adjudication before this Court since there is no dispute on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to try the appeal.

2.4. So far as the first issue regarding termination of service of the second respondent is concerned, the Tribunal held it to be violative of the Principles of Natural Justice as well as the terms of appointment. The relevant findings to that effect are as under:

9. .. .Now, moot point in the present appeal is as to what was the ground of termination of services of appellant? Although, nothing has been mentioned in the reply by respondent No.1 regarding the ground of termination of services of appellant but perusal of notice dated 12.9.2016 Ex.P5 and termination letter dated 17.9.2016 Ex.P4 reveals that appellant was allegedly not discharging his duties. He was disrupting the school activities and failed to carry on the task assigned to him. If at all appellant was not discharging his official duties diligently or disrupting the school activities by not improving his conduct and school administration was not satisfied with his services then at least a regular domestic enquiry should have been initiated against him and he should have been allowed to join the said enquiry and ultimately his services could have been terminated on the principles of fair hearing, equity and justice. In the case in hand, respondent No.2 has not followed the principles of natural justice and terminated the services of appellant arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously. Thus, looking from any angle show cause notice Ex.P5 and termination letter Ex. P4 were not legal and valid and were in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.

3. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that irrespective of the second respondent's termination being in violation of the terms of contract and illegal, he was not entitled to be