The termination of a probationary employee requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including proper evaluation and opportunity to improve, rendering arbitrary terminations invalid.

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

The applicant was appointed to the post of Vice Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) through direct recruitment by Annexure A/3 memorandum dated 28.10.2023. He was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya , BSF, Gokul Nagar as Principal Grade-II. As per the memorandum of appointment, he would be on probation for a period of two years which was liable to be extended by two more years. He claims that pursuant to his appointment he had worked hard to build up the recently set up school both infrastructure wise and Academic wise.

2. By Annexure A/4 memorandum dated 05.09.2024, he was conveyed the intention of the respondents to initiate action under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, on an allegation that he remained absent from school and had not updated the attendance register. By Annexure A/5 reply he denied the allegation and contended that he was on Casual Leave. Further, during the period from 21.08.24 to 26.08.2024, all the Institutions were closed by the Government due to flood. By Annexure A/6 order, a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage, for one year, with effect from 01.01.2024 was imposed on the applicant. By Annexure A/7 dated 04.11.2024, the period of probation was extended by one year from 10.11.2025 to 09.11.2026. He preferred Annexure A/8 appeal dated 22.11.2024 before the Appellate Authority.

3. By Annexure A/9 communication dated 08.01.2025, applicant was informed that a fact finding inquiry was proposed to be held on 09.01.2025. According to the applicant, no inquiry was conducted and nature of allegation was not disclosed to him. In the meanwhile, Annexure A/8, Appeal filed by him was rejected by Annexure A/10 order confirming the penalty order imposed on him.

4. While so, the second respondent issued Annexure A/1 memorandum dated 11.04.2025 terminating the service of applicant forthwith. Consequently, the fourth respondent issued Annexure A/2 order relieving him from duties.

5. Challenging the Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2 the applicant had preferred this Original Application essentially seeking the following relief(s) :-

“8.1. That the impugned memorandum and order- both dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure- 1 & 2 respectively) be set aside and quashed;

8.2. That the respondents be directed to restore the service of the applicant with all consequential benefits.”

6. The applicant challenged Annexure A/1 & A/2 on the ground that the order was issued in inexplicable and undue haste and he was not even served with original order of termination. He was directed to handover the charge without following any due procedure. It was further contended that the termination order was illegal, arbitrary, unethical and was liable to be dismissed.

7. The respondents filed written statement contending that the applicant was appointed against a temporary post of Vice Principal and was on probation. The appointment was not permanent, but for the time being, with no right to post. Since he failed to maintain absolute integrity, lack of devotion and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Service Rules, he was imposed with penalty of reduction of pay by one stage.

8. While so, during the surprise visit of the Assistant Commissioner of KVS, applicant was found to have been absent from the school since 23.12.2024. A two member committee was constituted to conduct a fact finding inquiry which submitted a report clearly indicating that the applicant was unauthorisedly absent from duty. He had also wilfully manipulated the official records, He suffered from lack of devotion and was of doubtful integrity. They suggested further action.

9. It was contended that Annexure A/1 conveyed only a termination simpliciter and did not cast any stigma on the probationer. Ter