A probationer's termination without inquiry is improper unless unsatisfactory performance is established; acquittal in criminal proceedings removes the grounds for termination.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -

By way of the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned termination order dated 08.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-A-1) passed by respondent whereby, the services of the applicant from the post of Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, have been terminated;

(ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 17.10.2019 (ANNEXURE-A-2) passed by the respondent whereby, the applicant’s representation for reinstatement to the post of Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, has been rejected;

(iii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to reinstate the applicant on the post of Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, with all consequential benefits including back wages and seniority etc.;

(iv) Any other relief, order or directions which this Hon’ble Tribunal considers just and fit may also be passed in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after due process of recruitment, the applicant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondents vide offer letter dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure-A/3) and was posted at Government Sarvodaya Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, C-Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi, on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining i.e. 19.05.2009. The probation period was due to expire on 18.05.2011.In the meantime, some articles/documents belonging to the applicant, including money, driving licence, and identity card, were lost, for which he lodged a complaint dated 10.03.2010. Further, due to his wife’s ill-health, the applicant remained absent from duty, for which he was served memos and asked to furnish his explanation for being absent from the school and further, he was directed to attend school immediately and report to the Head of the School. The applicant replied immediately to the said Memos and presented himself for joining the duty in the school concerned. Subsequently, on 26.04.2010, the applicant was arrested in FIR No. 35/2010 dated 21.03.2010, registered by the Crime Branch, North District, Delhi, under Sections 419/420 IPC, on the allegation that he had permitted someone else to appear as an invigilator in a DTC examination for the post of Driver. However, when produced before the learned Court, he was released on bail within 24 hours vide order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-A/7).Thereafter, upon being served with a Memo dated 28.04.2010, the applicant submitted his detailed reply dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure-A/8) explaining all facts. However, due to the pendency of the above criminal case, his probation period was extended for one more year by the Assistant Director vide order dated 18.05.2011 (Annexure-A/9) Subsequently, after issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure-A/10) and despite the applicant’s reply dated 02.07.2011, his services were terminated vide Termination Order dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure-A/12) issued by the Deputy Director of Education. The applicant challenged the said termination and, after prolonged litigation up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Annexures A-13 to A-16), succeeded when this Tribunal, vide order dated 25.11.2013 in O.A. No. 3482/2011 (Annexure-A/17), set aside the first termina