Termination of a probationer based on allegations of misconduct, fraud, or stigma is punitive and requires compliance with principles of natural justice and disciplinary procedure, even if the order is styled as simpliciter.

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against Order No. F.5-198/JSA/NVS/CR/EStt.(NT)/2024/447-52 dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by Respondent No. 5, vide which the services of the applicant have been terminated. The applicant prays that the termination order be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be reinstated in service with wages and consequential benefits w.e.f. date of termination.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows. The applicant, Smt. Renu Verma, is a widow, a single mother, and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Her husband, Late Sh. Sahdev Singh, was an employee of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) and died while in service. The applicant was offered appointment on compassionate grounds to the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) under Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti vide offer of appointment dated 14.06.2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Regional Office Chandigarh, who acted as the appointing authority (Annexure A-2). The offer letter placed the applicant in Pay Level-2 (%19,900-63,200) under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, indicating a substantive appointment subject to probation and training, and not a purely casual or ad-hoc engagement.

3. The applicant accepted the offer and joined service on 25.06.2024 at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Amritsar-I, Punjab. While working at JNV Amritsar, the applicant alleges that she was subjected to sexual and physical harassment by one Sh. Sumit Sharma, UDC. Complaints made by the applicant to the local authorities within NVS allegedly did not result in any action. According to the applicant, instead of redressing her grievance, certain officials allegedly retaliated by circulating personal photographs taken from the applicant’s office computer, resulting in character assassination. These allegations were later incorporated by the applicant in her written representation and complaints to various authorities. 3 (0.A.No.060/504/2025)

4. Vide order dated 19.10.2024, issued by the Principal, JNV Amritsar-I (Annexure A-3), the applicant was attached to JNV Mohali with immediate effect. The applicant asserts that the Principal had no authority to order such attachment and that the same was punitive and retaliatory in nature. Though the attachment order mentioned payment of TA/DA, no such allowance was paid. The applicant joined at JNV Mohali on 21.10.2024 and continued to work there.

5. On 09.04.2025, at about 7:30 PM, the applicant received a telephone call from the Principal, JNV Mohali, directing her to immediately report to the school office to receive an urgent communication from the Regional Office. Upon reaching the office, the applicant was served with a forwarding letter dated 09.04.2025 enclosing Order No. F.5-198/JSA/NVS/CR/Estt.(NT)/2024/447-52 dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Cluster In-Charge, NVS, Chandigarh, terminating her services forthwith by invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and Clause-2 of the appointment letter. The impugned termination order allegedly did not assign any reasons, nor did it refer to any adverse assessment, training deficiency, misconduct, or unsatisfactory performance.

6. The applicant contends that the termination order was passed without notice, warning, advisory, show cause, or opportunity of hearing, and during the subsistence of probation, without adherence to the DoPT Master Circular dated 11.03.2019 governing probation, training, evaluation, and termination of probationers. The applicant further asserts that the Assistant Commissioner was neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority for the post of JSA, as per the relevant NVS notification dated 03.07.2023, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the termination order. 4 (0.A.No.060/504/2025)

7. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dat