ORDER (Oral)

Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)

The applicant was an Assistant Teacher with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). His services were terminated as a result of his involvement in some criminal case vide order dated 13.09.2011. The applicant approached this Tribunal in OA 3482/2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2013 by passing the following order:

“5. Though the decision of the respondents to issue an order simplicitor terminating applicant’s services under Rule 5 (1) cannot be faulted on merit, we feel that the Department indeed committed a mistake in issuing the order dated 13.09.2011, as it has been issued by the Deputy Director of Education. The respondents’ argument that the Deputy Director issued order under delegated authority cannot be accepted as it is against the settled law as cited by the applicant. Though the respondents rightly claim that it has the approval of the Director of Education on file, still the aforesaid order dated 13.09.2011 does not even mention that it has the approval of Director of Education. Therefore, this order clearly has to go. We, therefore, quash the order dated 13.09.2011. As regards the order dated 18.05.2011 extending the probation period of the applicant, we do not think it is necessary for us to interfere in the same as the person who has been found involved in a case of cheating and impersonation definitely has to be kept under observation for a longer period till he is cleared of the allegation against him. We also wish to clarify that since it is a matter of technicality on which we quash the order dated 13.09.2011 i.e. only on the ground of the defect that it has been issued by the Deputy Director (although it had the approval of the Director of Education), we dispose of this OA with a direction to respondents to issue a fresh order terminating the services of the applicant under the signatures of the Director of Education and none else, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Meena, W.P (C)

No.4798/2012.”

2. The applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) 2964/2012 and the Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:

“5. We clarify. At the remand the Tribunal would decide the limited issue of the competence of the Deputy Director of Education to issue the termination order dated September 13, 2011.”

3. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.26584/2012 and the Supreme Court passed the following order:

“We find no merit.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

However, the petitioner is granted liberty to take up all the grounds if the final judgment is against the petitioner.”

The present OA arises out of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. As per directions of this Tribunal in OA 3482/2011 (supra), the respondents have passed detailed order dated 8.05.2014, terminating the services of the applicant with effect from 12.10.2011 and this order is signed by the Director of Education.

Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Call for the relevant records of the respondents and kindly peruse the same.

(ii) Declare the Order No.438 dated 8.05.2014 (Annexure A-1 impugned) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and quash the same.

(iii) Direct the respondents herein to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits, viz., continuity in service, pay and perks and interest @ 12% p.a. on arrears of such pay and perks.

(iv) Allow the cost of the litigation expenses in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has put forth the following arguments:

(i) During the extended period of probation of applicant, neither any notice was issued to him nor any advisory memo was issued to him. Meaning thereby that there was nothing adverse again